On Saturday, May 09, 2015 10:11:41 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:19:16 AM Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > On 05/08/2015 07:48 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> > >>
> > >> + /* Take note of the planned idle state. */
> > >> + idle_set_state(smp_processor_id(), target_state);
> > >
> > > And I wouldn't do this either.
> > >
> > > The behavior here is pretty much as though the driver demoted the state
> > > chosen
> > > by the governor and we don't call idle_set_state() again in those cases.
> >
> > Why is this wrong?
>
> It is not "wrong", but incomplete, because demotions done by the cpuidle
> driver
> should also be taken into account in the same way.
>
> But I'm seeing that the recent patch of mine that made cpuidle_enter_state()
> call default_idle_call() was a mistake, because it might confuse
> find_idlest_cpu()
> significantly as to what state the CPU is in. I'll drop that one for now.
OK, done.
So after I've dropped it I think we need to do three things:
(1) Move the idle_set_state() calls to cpuidle_enter_state().
(2) Make cpuidle_enter_state() call default_idle_call() again, but this time
do that *before* it has called idle_set_state() for target_state.
(3) Introduce demotion as per my last patch.
Let me cut patches for that.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
