On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 11:28:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/idle.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/idle.c
>>> +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/idle.c
>>> @@ -188,13 +188,14 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void)
>>> } else {
>>> unsigned int duration_us;
>>>
>>> - tick_nohz_idle_go_idle(true);
>>> - rcu_idle_enter();
>>> -
>>> /*
>>> * Ask the cpuidle framework to choose a convenient idle
>>> state.
>>> */
>>> next_state = cpuidle_select(drv, dev, &duration_us);
>>> +
>>> + tick_nohz_idle_go_idle(duration_us > USEC_PER_SEC / HZ);
>>> + rcu_idle_enter();
>>> +
>>> entered_state = call_cpuidle(drv, dev, next_state);
>>> /*
>>> * Give the governor an opportunity to reflect on the outcome
>>
>> So I think this is entirely wrong, I would much rather see something
>> like:
>>
>> tick_nohz_idle_go_idle(next_state->nohz);
>>
>> Where the selected state itself has the nohz property or not.
>
> Can you elaborate here, I'm not following?
>
>> We can always insert an extra state at whatever the right boundary point
>> is for nohz if it doesn't line up with an existing point.
OK, I guess I know what you mean: to add a state flag meaning "stop
the tick if this state is selected".
That could work, but I see problems, like having to go through all of
the already defined states and deciding what to do with them.
