| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
The default time is declared in units of microsecnds,
but is used as nanoseconds, resulting in significant
accounting errors for idle state 0 time when all idle
states deeper than 0 are disabled.
Under these unusual conditions, we don't really care
about the poll time limit anyhow.
Fixes: 800fb34a99ce ("cpuidle: poll_state: Disregard disable idle states")
Signed-off-by: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
When computing the limit of time to spend in the loop in poll_idle(),
use the target residency of the first enabled idle state deeper than
state 0 instead of always using the target residency of state 1.
This helps when state 1 is disabled for diagnostics, for instance.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
If need_resched() returns "false", breaking out of the loop in
poll_idle() will cause a new idle state to be selected, so in fact
it usually doesn't make sense to spin in it longer than the target
residency of the second state. [Note that the "polling" state is
used only if there is at least one "real" state defined in addition
to it, so the second state is always there.] On the other hand,
breaking out of it early (say in case the next state is disabled)
shouldn't hurt as it is polling anyway.
For this reason, make the loop in poll_idle() break if the CPU has
been spinning longer than the target residency of the second state
(the "polling" state can only be state[0]).
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
If the CPU exits the "polling" state due to the time limit in the
loop in poll_idle(), this is not a real wakeup and it just means
that the "polling" state selection was not adequate. The governor
mispredicted short idle duration, but had a more suitable state been
selected, the CPU might have spent more time in it. In fact, there
is no reason to expect that there would have been a wakeup event
earlier than the next timer in that case.
Handling such cases as regular wakeups in menu_update() may cause the
menu governor to make suboptimal decisions going forward, but ignoring
them altogether would not be correct either, because every time
menu_select() is invoked, it makes a separate new attempt to predict
the idle duration taking distinct time to the closest timer event as
input and the outcomes of all those attempts should be recorded.
For this reason, make menu_update() always assume that if the
"polling" state was exited due to the time limit, the next proper
wakeup event for the CPU would be the next timer event (not
including the tick).
Fixes: a37b969a61c1 "cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()"
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
|
|
Rik reports that he sees an increase in CPU use in one benchmark
due to commit 612f1a22f067 "cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to
poll_idle()" that caused poll_idle() to call local_clock() in every
iteration of the loop. Utilization increase generally means more
non-idle time with respect to total CPU time (on the average) which
implies reduced CPU frequency.
Doug reports that limiting the rate of local_clock() invocations
in there causes much less power to be drawn during a CPU-intensive
parallel workload (with idle states 1 and 2 disabled to enforce more
state 0 residency).
These two reports together suggest that executing local_clock() on
multiple CPUs in parallel at a high rate may cause chips to get hot
and trigger thermal/power limits on them to kick in, so reduce the
rate of local_clock() invocations in poll_idle() to avoid that issue.
Fixes: 612f1a22f067 "cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()"
Reported-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Reported-by: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
|
|
If poll_idle() is allowed to spin until need_resched() returns 'true',
it may actually spin for a much longer time than expected by the idle
governor, since set_tsk_need_resched() is not always called by the
timer interrupt handler. If that happens, the CPU may spend much
more time than anticipated in the "polling" state.
To prevent that from happening, limit the time of the spinning loop
in poll_idle().
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
|
|
Make the drivers that want to include the polling state into their
states table initialize it explicitly and drop the initialization of
it (which in fact is conditional, but that is not obvious from the
code) from the core.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
|
|
Move the polling state initialization code to a separate file built
conditionally on CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CPU_RELAX to get rid of the #ifdef
in driver.c.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
|
Doug Smythies
Rafael J. Wysocki