On Monday, March 12, 2018 10:36:27 AM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.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().
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
> ---
>
> -> v2: After additional testing reduce POLL_IDLE_TIME_CHECK_COUNT to 1000.
>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> @@ -5,16 +5,31 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/cpuidle.h>
> +#include <linux/ktime.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> #include <linux/sched/idle.h>
>
> +#define POLL_IDLE_TIME_CHECK_COUNT 1000
> +#define POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT (TICK_NSEC / 16)
> +
> static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
> {
> + ktime_t start = ktime_get();
> +
> local_irq_enable();
> if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
> - while (!need_resched())
> + unsigned int time_check_counter = 0;
> +
> + while (!need_resched()) {
> cpu_relax();
> + if (time_check_counter++ < POLL_IDLE_TIME_CHECK_COUNT)
> + continue;
> +
> + time_check_counter = 0;
> + if (ktime_sub(ktime_get(), start) >
> POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT)
> + break;
> + }
> }
> current_clr_polling();
>
No comments, so I'm assuming no objections or concerns.
I've seen reports telling me that this patch alone may reduce the CPU package
power by as much as 30% sometimes.
Thanks!
