lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] cpuidle/menu: add per cpu pm_qos_resume_latency consideration
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:43:23PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

[ ... ]

> > This function is called from the notifier callback:
> >
> > static int cpuidle_latency_notify(struct notifier_block *b,
> > unsigned long l, void *v)
> > {
> > - wake_up_all_idle_cpus();
> > + struct cpuidle_device *dev;
> > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv;
> > +
> > + cpuidle_pause_and_lock();
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > + dev = &per_cpu(cpuidle_dev, cpu);
> > + drv = = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev);
> > + cpuidle_set_latency(drv, dev, l)
> > + }
> > + cpuidle_resume_and_unlock();
> > +
> > return NOTIFY_OK;
> > }
>
> The above may be problematic if the constraints change relatively
> often. It is global and it will affect all of the CPUs in the system
> every time and now think about systems with hundreds of them.

Yeah, that could be problematic. The code snippet gives the general idea but it
could be changed by for example by a flag telling the cpus when they enter idle
to update their state_count. Or something like that.

But if you think the patchset is fine, it is ok, we can improve things afterwards.

-- Daniel

--

<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-20 11:55    [W:0.082 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site