Hi Shilpa,

The subject does not convey the purpose of this patch clearly IMO.
I would definitely suggest changing the subject to something like
"Auto promotion of snooze to deeper idle state" or similar.

On 05/29/2015 06:02 PM, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
> The idle cpus which stay in snooze for a long period can degrade the
> perfomance of the sibling cpus. If the cpu stays in snooze for more
> than target residency of the next available idle state, then exit from
> snooze. This gives a chance to the cpuidle governor to re-evaluate the
> last idle state of the cpu to promote it to deeper idle states.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-powernv.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-pseries.c | 11 +++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-pseries.c 
> b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-pseries.c
> index bb9e2b6..07135e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-pseries.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-pseries.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ struct cpuidle_driver pseries_idle_driver = {
>  
>  static int max_idle_state;
>  static struct cpuidle_state *cpuidle_state_table;
> +static u64 snooze_timeout;
> +static bool snooze_timeout_en;
>  
>  static inline void idle_loop_prolog(unsigned long *in_purr)
>  {
> @@ -58,14 +60,18 @@ static int snooze_loop(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>                       int index)
>  {
>       unsigned long in_purr;
> +     u64 snooze_exit_time;
>  
>       idle_loop_prolog(&in_purr);
>       local_irq_enable();
>       set_thread_flag(TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG);
> +     snooze_exit_time = get_tb() + snooze_timeout;
>  
>       while (!need_resched()) {
>               HMT_low();
>               HMT_very_low();
> +             if (snooze_timeout_en && get_tb() > snooze_exit_time)
> +                     break;
>       }
>  
>       HMT_medium();
> @@ -244,6 +250,11 @@ static int pseries_idle_probe(void)
>       } else
>               return -ENODEV;
>  
> +     if (max_idle_state > 1) {
> +             snooze_timeout_en = true;
> +             snooze_timeout = cpuidle_state_table[1].target_residency *
> +                              tb_ticks_per_usec;
> +     }

Any idea why we don't have snooze defined on the shared lpar configuration ?

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
>       return 0;
>  }
>  
> 

--
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/

Reply via email to