Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] cpuidle: teo: Rearrange idle state lookup code

From: Christian Loehle
Date: Wed Jan 15 2025 - 09:22:19 EST


On 1/13/25 18:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Rearrange code in the idle state lookup loop in teo_select() to make it
> somewhat easier to follow and update comments around it.
>
> No intentional functional impact.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@xxxxxxx>

> ---
>
> This is the same patch as
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/3332506.aeNJFYEL58@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c
> @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@
> * If the sum of the intercepts metric for all of the idle states
> * shallower than the current candidate one (idx) is greater than the
> * sum of the intercepts and hits metrics for the candidate state and
> - * all of the deeper states a shallower idle state is likely to be a
> + * all of the deeper states, a shallower idle state is likely to be a
> * better choice.
> */
> prev_intercept_idx = idx;
> @@ -396,30 +396,36 @@
> * first enabled state that is deep enough.
> */
> if (teo_state_ok(i, drv) &&
> - !dev->states_usage[i].disable)
> + !dev->states_usage[i].disable) {
> idx = i;
> - else
> - idx = first_suitable_idx;
> -
> + break;
> + }
> + idx = first_suitable_idx;
> break;
> }
>
> if (dev->states_usage[i].disable)
> continue;
>
> - if (!teo_state_ok(i, drv)) {
> + if (teo_state_ok(i, drv)) {
> /*
> - * The current state is too shallow, but if an
> - * alternative candidate state has been found,
> - * it may still turn out to be a better choice.
> + * The current state is deep enough, but still
> + * there may be a better one.
> */
> - if (first_suitable_idx != idx)
> - continue;
> -
> - break;
> + first_suitable_idx = i;
> + continue;
> }
>
> - first_suitable_idx = i;
> + /*
> + * The current state is too shallow, so if no suitable
> + * states other than the initial candidate have been
> + * found, give up (the remaining states to check are
> + * shallower still), but otherwise the first suitable
> + * state other than the initial candidate may turn out
> + * to be preferable.
> + */
> + if (first_suitable_idx == idx)
> + break;
> }
> }
> if (!idx && prev_intercept_idx) {
>
>
>