On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:46:41 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2017/10/14 8:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:31 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
> >> sleep length indicates how long we'll be idle. Currently, it's updated
> >> only when tick nohz enters. These patch series make a new requirement
> >> with tick, so we should keep sleep length updated as needed
> >
> > So what exactly would be the problem with leaving things as they are?
>
> Previously ts->sleep_length is only updated when tick is stopped.
>
> As follows, in
>
> __tick_nohz_idle_enter()
> {
> if (can_stop_idle_tick() /* return true */) {
> tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick()
> |
> |-----> update sleep_length
> }
> }
Which is logical, because the tick will get in the way if we don't stop it,
won't it?
>
> Now ts->sleep_length is required out of tick_nohz_idle_enter(), so we want
> to update sleep_length every time we read it
>
> If we leave it unchanged, the prediction could read a sleep_length long time
> ago if the system keep ticking.
Well, but does it make sense to estimate the sleep length without stopping
the tick?
> >> ---
> >> kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 3 +++
> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> >> index d663fab..94fb9b8 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> >> @@ -1008,8 +1008,11 @@ void tick_nohz_irq_exit(void)
> >> */
> >> ktime_t tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(void)
> >> {
> >> + struct clock_event_device *dev =
> >> __this_cpu_read(tick_cpu_device.evtdev);
> >> struct tick_sched *ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched);
> >>
> >> + ts->sleep_length = ktime_sub(dev->next_event, ktime_get());
> >> +
> >> return ts->sleep_length;
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I probably wouldn't do it this way ...
> >
> >
>
> May I know the detailed thoughts?
That depends on the answer above. :-)
Thanks,
Rafael
