Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:39:08 +0100 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] idle: Move idle conditions in cpuidle_idle main function |
| |
On 02/24/2014 03:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 02:55:50PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> @@ -136,25 +155,8 @@ static void cpu_idle_loop(void) >> local_irq_disable(); >> arch_cpu_idle_enter(); >> >> - /* >> - * In poll mode we reenable interrupts and spin. >> - * >> - * Also if we detected in the wakeup from idle >> - * path that the tick broadcast device expired >> - * for us, we don't want to go deep idle as we >> - * know that the IPI is going to arrive right >> - * away >> - */ >> - if (cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired()) { >> - cpu_idle_poll(); >> - } else { >> - if (!current_clr_polling_and_test()) { >> - cpuidle_idle_call(); >> - } else { >> - local_irq_enable(); >> - } >> - __current_set_polling(); >> - } >> + cpuidle_idle_call(); >> + > > Yeah, not liking that much; you can make it look like: > > if (cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired()) > cpu_idle_poll(); > else > cpu_idle_call(); > > Though. That keeps the polling case separate from the actual idle > function.
Yes, you are right, it looks better.
> And when you do that; you can also push down the > current_clr_polling_and_test() muck so it doesn't cover the actual > cpuidle policy code.
I am not getting it. Where do you suggest to move it ?
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |