Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] s390/idle: Introduce cpuidle for s390

[Mete Durlu]

On 6/18/26 4:41 PM, Christian Loehle wrote:
> On 6/18/26 13:00, Mete Durlu wrote:
> > Introduce generic cpuidle driver on s390. Use a two stage approach to
> > handle idle scenarios and use idle governor for idle stage selection.
> > Two stages are, from shallow to deep, idle polling and enabled wait.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Suggested-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mete Durlu <meted@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---

[..snip..]


> > +static int s390_cpuidle_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	struct cpuidle_device *dev = &per_cpu(cpuidle_dev, cpu);
> > +	int rc;
> > +
> > +	if (dev->registered) {
> > +		cpuidle_pause_and_lock();
> > +		rc = cpuidle_enable_device(dev);
> > +		cpuidle_resume_and_unlock();
> > +		if (rc)
> > +			pr_err("Failed to enable cpuidle device on cpu %u\n", cpu);
> > +	} else {
> > +		dev->cpu = cpu;
> > +		rc = cpuidle_register_device(dev);
> > +		if (rc)
> > +			pr_err("Failed to register cpuidle driver on cpu %u\n", cpu);
> > +	}
> > +	return rc;
>
> Most other drivers allow for hotplug cpu_online to succeed even if cpuidle doesn't, is
> this intentionally done otherwise here?

Yes it is by design. Users would not be aware that something went wrong
if we don't fail here (unless they check dmesg regularly which we don't
expect). By failing here driver communicates that there is a problem
and allows users to resolve that instead of letting a cpu run with
degraded performance.