Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:56:47 +0800 | From | Jisheng Zhang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: add cpu_idle tracepoints to arch_cpu_idle |
| |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:16:05 +0100 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 04:11:05PM +0100, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > Dear Lorenzo, > > > > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:53:12 +0800 > > Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Lorenzo, > > > > > > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:47:38 +0100 > > > Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:23:21PM +0100, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > > > Currently, if cpuidle is disabled or not supported, powertop reports > > > > > zero wakeups and zero events. This is due to the cpu_idle tracepoints > > > > > are missing. > > > > > > > > > > This patch is to make cpu_idle tracepoints always available even if > > > > > cpuidle is disabled or not supported. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > Is there a reason why this code cannot be moved to the generic idle loop ? > > > > > > Do you mean the cpu_idle_loop() in kernel/sched/idle.c? To be honest, I > > > > Maybe I know now. we need to trace different idle level, for example: > > > > WFI idle: trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(1, ...); > > > > deeper idle: trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(2, ...); > > > > Usually, the first argument of trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle() equals to the index > > of the idle level. > > > > so generic idle loop is not a good candidate. > > You are adding a trace for tracing state 1 (ie default idle state), > called from arch_cpu_idle(), which is the default idle call when the > CPUidle framework is not available, so I suggested moving the traces > you add to arm/arm64 arch_cpu_idle() calls to kernel/sched/idle.c > (see default_idle_call()) instead of patching architecture code. > > I think you can't do that because on x86 calling arch_cpu_idle() > does not always mean entering idle state index 1 if I read the code > correctly (in particular the mwait based implementation - mwait_idle()). > > So never mind, patch is fine (on arm64, on arm you should be careful > because some arm_pm_idle implementations trace state 1 already - > see omap3_pm_idle and if you add traces to arch_cpu_idle you should > remove the traces from mach implementations).
OOPs, I was debugging the cascaded irq issues on Marvell BG4CT SoC. Yes, this arm_pm_idle should be taken care on arm, I should ignore arm_pm_idle, I'll cook v2 for arm platform.
Thanks a lot, Jisheng
> > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
| |