On 2017/7/14 2:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:13:28PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2017/7/13 22:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> Fixing C-state selection by creating an alternative idle path sounds so
>>> very wrong.
>>
>> This only happens on the arch which has multiple hardware idle cstates, like
>> Intel's processor. As long as we want to support multiple cstates, we have to
>> make a selection(with cost of timestamp update and computation). That's fine
>> in the normal idle path, but if we want a fast idle switch, we can make a
>> tradeoff to use a low-latency one directly, that's why I proposed a fast idle
>> path, so that we don't need to mix fast idle condition judgement in both idle
>> entry and idle exit path.
>
> That doesn't make sense. If you can decide to pick a shallow C state in
> any way, you can fix the general selection too.
>
Okay, maybe something like the following make sense? Give a hint to
cpuidle_idle_call() to indicate a fast idle.
--------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
index ef63adc..3165e99 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void)
*/
rcu_idle_enter();
- if (cpuidle_not_available(drv, dev)) {
+ if (cpuidle_not_available(drv, dev) || this_is_a_fast_idle) {
default_idle_call();
goto exit_idle;
}
