cpuidle: ladder: Better idle duration measurement without using CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_INVALID
When the ladder governor sees the CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_INVALID flag, it unconditionally causes a state promotion by setting last_residency to a number higher than the state's promotion_time: last_residency = last_state->threshold.promotion_time + 1 It does this for fear that cpuidle_get_last_residency() will be in-accurate, because cpuidle_enter_state() invoked a state with CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_INVALID. But the only state with CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_INVALID is acpi_safe_halt(), which may return well after its actual idle duration because it enables interrupts, so cpuidle_enter_state() also measures interrupt service time. So what? In ladder, a huge invalid last_residency has exactly the same effect as the current code -- it unconditionally causes a state promotion. In the case where the idle residency plus measured interrupt handling time is less than the state's demotion_time -- we should use that timestamp to give ladder a chance to demote, rather than unconditionally promoting. This can be done by simply ignoring the CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_INVALID, and using the "invalid" time, as it is either equal to what we are doing today, or better. Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
4108b3d962
commit
b73026b9c9
@ -79,12 +79,7 @@ static int ladder_select_state(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
|
||||
|
||||
last_state = &ldev->states[last_idx];
|
||||
|
||||
if (!(drv->states[last_idx].flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_INVALID)) {
|
||||
last_residency = cpuidle_get_last_residency(dev) - \
|
||||
drv->states[last_idx].exit_latency;
|
||||
}
|
||||
else
|
||||
last_residency = last_state->threshold.promotion_time + 1;
|
||||
last_residency = cpuidle_get_last_residency(dev) - drv->states[last_idx].exit_latency;
|
||||
|
||||
/* consider promotion */
|
||||
if (last_idx < drv->state_count - 1 &&
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user