On 2017/10/14 8:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:30 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>> If the next idle is expected to be a fast idle, we should keep tick
>> on before going into idle
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey...@linux.intel.com>
>
> This also can be merged with the previous patch (and the [2/8]) IMO.
>
okay, will merge in the next version.
>> ---
>> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/cpuidle.h | 2 ++
>> kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 4 ++++
>> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>> index ef6f7dd..6cb7e17 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>> @@ -370,6 +370,20 @@ void cpuidle_predict(void)
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + * cpuidle_fast_idle - predict whether or not the coming idle is a fast idle
>> + * This function can be called in irq exit path, make it as soon as possible
>> + */
>> +bool cpuidle_fast_idle(void)
>> +{
>> + struct cpuidle_device *dev = cpuidle_get_device();
>> +
>> + if (!dev)
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + return dev->idle_stat.fast_idle;
>
> return dev && dev->idle_stat.fast_idle;
Thanks!
>>
>> @@ -916,6 +917,9 @@ static bool can_stop_idle_tick(int cpu, struct
>> tick_sched *ts)
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> + if (cpuidle_fast_idle())
>> + return false;
>> +
>> return true;
>
> return !cpuidle_fast_idle();
And thanks!
>
>> }
>>
>>
>
> And IMO there is quite a bit too much marketing in the "fast_idle" name,
> as it seems all about avoiding to stop the tick if the predicted idle
> duration is short enough.
>
okay, and what's your suggestion? :)
I'll try to move quiet_vmstat() into the normal idle branch if this patch series
are reasonable. Is fast_idle a good indication for it?
Thanks,
-Aubrey
