[RFC PATCH v4 0/4] Consolidate cpuidle timekeeping and irq enabling
ccross at google.com
Wed Feb 22 20:52:49 UTC 2012
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Rob Lee <rob.lee at linaro.org> wrote:
> Maintainers for drivers/cpuidle, do you have any comments/opinions
> about this patch?
> Intel cpuidle and acpi cpuidle maintainers, do you have any
> comments/opinions about this patch and the changes to your code?
> Any other review and comments welcome.
> Summary of positive and negatives as I understand them so far:
> version 1, 2, and 3 (Original "wrapper" method of consolidating
> timekeeping and interrupt enabling)
> + opportunistically provides consolidation for simple platform cpuidle
> implementations without disturbing the more complex implementations.
> By simple, I mean those at can be wrapped in the time keeping calls
> and interrupt enabling calls without significantly affecting idle time
> keeping accuracy or interrupt latency
> - Does not provide consolidation for the more complex platform cpuidle
> - Adds an additional interface, perhaps unnecessarily if this
> consolidation could be done in cpuidle
> version 4 (modifications to drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c cpuidle_idle_call)
> + Adds consolidation work to cpuidle_idle_call which allows all
> platform timekeeping / interrupt handling to be consolidated.
I think the question of what the timekeeping means needs to be
considered. If the timekeeping is supposed to be a very accurate
measurement of the time spent in the low power idle state, only the
cpuidle driver can guarantee that - there may be significant time
spent in the hardware transition or the very low level power code that
cannot be split into pre_enter, but should not be counted in the
timekeeping. Or there may be a long boot time out of the low power
state that should not be counted. If it is just a rough estimate of
how often the cpu is getting to idle, there is no need to split out
the pre_enter time - just measure the time around the entire driver
enter call. Either way, pre_enter doesn't seem useful.
> - Requires splitting up of more complex platform cpuidle
> implementations, adding further complexity and risk of breaking
> ? Allows both pre_enter or enter to change the idle state. Is there
> an objection to this?
pre_enter (if it is kept) would probably have to support state
demotion, because its actions may depend on the final state. For
coupled SMP cpuidle, enter also has to support state demotion, because
the final state will depend on actions of the other cpu after idle has
> ? Splitting up the enter functions can require additional function
> calls. Is there any concern that this is significant additional
I don't think so, especially if you support NULL pre_enter and
post_enter functions to allow drivers that care to skip them.
More information about the linaro-dev