linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpuidle/menu: add per cpu pm_qos_resume_latency consideration
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:21:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170119102158.GA1827@mai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01f9b016-0b7c-44ac-70e5-8cd9b8bd1500@linaro.org>

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:25:37PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> 
> > That said, I have the feeling that is taking the wrong direction. Each time we
> > are entering idle, we check the latencies. Entering idle can be done thousand
> > of times per second. Wouldn't make sense to disable the states not fulfilling
> > the constraints at the moment the latencies are changed ? As the idle states
> > have increasing exit latencies, setting an idle state limit to disable all
> > states after that limit may be more efficient than checking again and again in
> > the idle path, no ?
> 
> You'r right. save some checking is good thing to do.

Hi Alex,

I think you missed the point.

What I am proposing is to change the current approach by disabling all the
states after a specific latency.

We add a specific internal function:

static int cpuidle_set_latency(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
				struct cpuidle_device *dev,
				int latency)
{
	int i, idx;

	for (i = 0, idx = 0; i < drv->state_count; i++) {

		struct cpuidle_state *s = &drv->states[i];			

		if (s->latency > latency)
			break;

		idx = i;
	}

	dev->state_count = idx;

	return 0;
}

This function is called from the notifier callback:

static int cpuidle_latency_notify(struct notifier_block *b,
                unsigned long l, void *v)
 {
-       wake_up_all_idle_cpus();
+       struct cpuidle_device *dev;
+       struct cpuidle_driver *drv;
+
+       cpuidle_pause_and_lock();
+       for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+               dev = &per_cpu(cpuidle_dev, cpu);
+               drv = = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev);    
+               cpuidle_set_latency(drv, dev, l)
+       }
+       cpuidle_resume_and_unlock();
+
        return NOTIFY_OK;
 }

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The menu governor becomes:

diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
index bba3c2af..87e58e3 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
@@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev)
         * Find the idle state with the lowest power while satisfying
         * our constraints.
         */
-       for (i = data->last_state_idx + 1; i < drv->state_count; i++) {
+       for (i = data->last_state_idx + 1; i < dev->state_count; i++) {
                struct cpuidle_state *s = &drv->states[i];
                struct cpuidle_state_usage *su = &dev->states_usage[i];


... with a cleanup around latency_req.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the cpuidle_device structure is changed to:

diff --git a/include/linux/cpuidle.h b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
index b923c32..2fc966cb 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpuidle.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ struct cpuidle_device {
        cpumask_t               coupled_cpus;
        struct cpuidle_coupled  *coupled;
 #endif
+       int state_count;
 };
 
 DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device *, cpuidle_devices);


At init time, the drv->state_count and all cpu's dev->state_count are the same.

Well, that is the rough idea: instead of reading the latency when entering
idle, let's disable/enable the idle states when we set a new latency.

I did not check how that fits with the per cpu latency, but I think it will be
cleaner to change the approach rather than spreading latencies dances around.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-19 10:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-12 13:27 [PATCH v2 0/3] per cpu resume latency Alex Shi
2017-01-12 13:27 ` [PATCH 1/3] cpuidle/menu: stop seeking deeper idle if current state is too deep Alex Shi
2017-01-12 13:27 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] cpu: expose pm_qos_resume_latency for each cpu Alex Shi
2017-01-17 10:23   ` Daniel Lezcano
2017-01-19  8:18     ` Alex Shi
2017-01-12 13:27 ` [PATCH 3/3] cpuidle/menu: add per cpu pm_qos_resume_latency consideration Alex Shi
2017-01-12 20:03   ` Rik van Riel
2017-01-16  1:11     ` Alex Shi
2017-01-17  9:38   ` Daniel Lezcano
2017-01-19  9:25     ` Alex Shi
2017-01-19 10:21       ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2017-01-19 21:43         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-01-20  8:35           ` Alex Shi
2017-01-20 10:54           ` Daniel Lezcano
2017-01-22  1:31             ` Alex Shi
2017-01-23 12:50               ` Daniel Lezcano
2017-01-23 14:58                 ` Alex Shi
     [not found] <1483630187-29622-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org>
2017-01-05 15:29 ` Alex Shi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170119102158.GA1827@mai \
    --to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
    --cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).