On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 03:31:24PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
static void cpu_idle_loop(void) {
- unsigned int latency_req;
- unsigned int latency_req, next_timer_event;
while (1) { /* @@ -221,6 +222,9 @@ static void cpu_idle_loop(void) latency_req = pm_qos_request(PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY);
next_timer_event =
ktime_to_us(tick_nohz_get_sleep_length());
/* * In poll mode we reenable interrupts and spin. *
@@ -238,7 +242,8 @@ static void cpu_idle_loop(void) tick_check_broadcast_expired()) cpu_idle_poll(); else
cpuidle_idle_call(latency_req);
cpuidle_idle_call(latency_req,
next_timer_event);
arch_cpu_idle_exit(); }
Why do we want to query the next timer in the poll case? Afaict the other patches don't make use of this either.