lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] sched: fair: Fix wrong idle timestamp usage
On 04/15/2015 07:10 PM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 04:43:17PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 04/15/2015 02:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:00:24PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> The find_idlest_cpu is assuming the rq->idle_stamp information reflects when
>>>> the cpu entered the idle state. This is wrong as the cpu may exit and enter
>>>> the idle state several times without the rq->idle_stamp being updated.
>>>
>>> Sure, but you forgot to tell us why it matters.
>>
>> Yes, right. Thanks for pointing this out.
>>
>> Assuming we are in the situation where there are several idle cpus in
>> the same idle state.
>>
>> With the current code, the function find_idlest_cpu will choose a cpu
>> with the shortest idle duration. This information is based on the
>> rq->idle_stamp variable and is correct until one of the idle cpu is
>> exiting the cpuidle_enter function and re-entering it again. As soon as
>> this happen, the rq->idle_stamp value is no longer a reliable information.
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> * CPU0 and CPU1 are running
>> * CPU2 and CPU3 are in the C3 state.
>> * CPU2 entered idle at T2
>> * CPU3 entered idle at T3
>> * T2 < T3
>>
>> The function find_idlest_cpu will choose CPU3 because it has a shorter
>> idle duration.
>>
>> Then CPU3 is woken up by an interrupt, process it and re-enter idle C3.
>>
>> The information will still give the out to date information T2 < T3 and
>> find_idlest_cpu will choose CPU2 instead of CPU3.
>
> I can't get the example to match your description of how
> find_idlest_cpu() is supposed to work :-(
>
> Did you mean CPU2 (not CPU3) getting woken up by an interrupt and
> find_busiest_cpu() choosing CPU3 instead of CPU2 after the interrupt?
>
> In your example find_busiest_cpu() should return CPU3 before the
> interrupt as it went to sleep last and the interrupt on CPU3 should not
> affect that choice as CPU3 is still the last cpu to go to sleep
> (regardless of your patch). No?

Yes you are right. I meant CPU2 is woken up by the interrupt.


--
<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: 2015-04-16 11:21    [W:0.070 / U:3.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site