IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Push the decision whether or not to stop the tick somewhat deeper
into the idle loop.
Stopping the tick upfront leads to unpleasant outcomes in case the
idle governor doesn't agree with the nohz code on the duration of the
upcoming idle period. Specifically, if the tick has been stopped and
the idle governor predicts short idle, the situation is bad regardless
of whether or not the prediction is accurate. If it is accurate, the
tick has been stopped unnecessarily which means excessive overhead.
If it is not accurate, the CPU is likely to spend too much time in
the (shallow, because short idle has been predicted) idle state
selected by the governor [1].
As the first step towards addressing this problem, change the code
to make the tick stopping decision inside of the loop in do_idle().
In particular, do not stop the tick in the cpu_idle_poll() code path.
Also don't do that in tick_nohz_irq_exit() which doesn't really have
enough information on whether or not to stop the tick.
Link: https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=150116085925208&w=2 # [1]
Link: https://tu-dresden.de/zih/forschung/ressourcen/dateien/projekte/haec/powernightmares.pdf
Suggested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
2aaf709a51