On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:11:04AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 4:44:14 AM CEST Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:39:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
> > > Index: linux-pm/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > > +++ linux-pm/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > > @@ -991,6 +991,20 @@ void tick_nohz_irq_exit(void)
> > > }
> > >
> > > /**
> > > + * tick_nohz_idle_got_tick - Check whether or not the tick handler has
> > > run
> > > + */
> > > +bool tick_nohz_idle_got_tick(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct tick_sched *ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched);
> > > +
> > > + if (ts->inidle > 1) {
> > > + ts->inidle = 1;
> > > + return true;
> > > + }
> > > + return false;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > * tick_nohz_get_sleep_length - return the length of the current sleep
> > > *
> > > * Called from power state control code with interrupts disabled
> > > @@ -1101,6 +1115,9 @@ static void tick_nohz_handler(struct clo
> > > struct pt_regs *regs = get_irq_regs();
> > > ktime_t now = ktime_get();
> > >
> > > + if (ts->inidle)
> > > + ts->inidle = 2;
> > > +
> >
> > You can move that to tick_sched_do_timer() to avoid code duplication.
> >
> > Also these constants are very opaque. And even with proper symbols it
> > wouldn't look
> > right to extend ts->inidle that way.
> >
> > Perhaps you should add a field such as ts->got_idle_tick under the boolean
> > fields
> > after the below patch:
> >
> > --
> > From c7b2ca5a4c512517ddfeb9f922d5999f82542ced Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org>
> > Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 04:32:37 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] nohz: Gather tick_sched booleans under a common flag field
> >
> > This optimize the space and leave plenty of room for further flags.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/time/tick-sched.h | 10 ++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.h b/kernel/time/tick-sched.h
> > index 954b43d..38f24dc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.h
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.h
> > @@ -45,14 +45,17 @@ struct tick_sched {
> > struct hrtimer sched_timer;
> > unsigned long check_clocks;
> > enum tick_nohz_mode nohz_mode;
> > +
> > + unsigned int inidle : 1;
> > + unsigned int tick_stopped : 1;
>
> This particular change breaks build, because tick_stopped is
> accessed via __this_cpu_read() in tick_nohz_tick_stopped().
Oops...
>
> > + unsigned int idle_active : 1;
> > + unsigned int do_timer_last : 1;
> > +
> > ktime_t last_tick;
> > ktime_t next_tick;
> > - int inidle;
> > - int tick_stopped;
> > unsigned long idle_jiffies;
> > unsigned long idle_calls;
> > unsigned long idle_sleeps;
> > - int idle_active;
> > ktime_t idle_entrytime;
> > ktime_t idle_waketime;
> > ktime_t idle_exittime;
> > @@ -62,7 +65,6 @@ struct tick_sched {
> > unsigned long last_jiffies;
> > u64 next_timer;
> > ktime_t idle_expires;
> > - int do_timer_last;
> > atomic_t tick_dep_mask;
> > };
> >
> >
>
> So what about this? And moving the duplicated piece of got_idle_tick
> manipulation on top of it?
>
> ---
> From: Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org>
> Subject: [PATCH] nohz: Gather tick_sched booleans under a common flag field
>
> Optimize the space and leave plenty of room for further flags.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org>
> [ rjw: Do not use __this_cpu_read() to access tick_stopped and add
> got_idle_tick to avoid overloading inidle ]
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
Yeah looks good, thanks!
