Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: menu: Fix long delay issue when tick stopped | From | Shaokun Zhang <> | Date | Thu, 27 Jan 2022 09:43:56 +0800 |
| |
Hi Rafael,
Apologies that reply later.
On 2022/1/21 2:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:16 AM Shaokun Zhang > <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com> wrote: >>
...<snip>...
>> [ 37.083307] intervals = 35us >> [ 37.083320] target_residency_ns = 10000, predicted_ns = 35482140 >> [ 37.083349] target_residency_ns = 600000, predicted_ns = 35482140 >> >> Add idle tick wakeup judge before change predicted_ns. >> >> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> >> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Guo Yang <guoyang2@huawei.com> >> Signed-off-by: Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com> >> --- >> drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c >> index c492268..3f03843 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c >> @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev, >> get_typical_interval(data, predicted_us)) * >> NSEC_PER_USEC; >> >> - if (tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) { >> + if (tick_nohz_tick_stopped() && data->tick_wakeup) { > > data->tick_wakeup is only true if tick_nohz_idle_got_tick() has > returned true, but I'm not sure how this can happen after stopping the > tick.
In order to debug this, call trace is added and as follow:
if (predicted_us < TICK_USEC) predicted_us = ktime_to_us(delta_next); printk("predicted_us = %uus\n", predicted_us); dump_stack(); //add call trace print }
When the issue came, the CPU was waken up by network interrupts [ 1048.130033] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130034] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130035] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130036] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130037] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130038] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130039] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130040] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130041] predicted_us = 484143us [ 1048.130043] CPU: 3 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/3 Tainted: G OE 5.3.0-rc6 #23 [ 1048.130044] Hardware name: Huawei 2288H V5/BC11SPSCB0, BIOS 0.39 12/01/2017 [ 1048.130045] Call Trace: [ 1048.130048] dump_stack+0x5a/0x73 [ 1048.130052] menu_select+0x3b0/0x6c0 [ 1048.130058] do_idle+0x1b4/0x290 [ 1048.130063] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 [ 1048.130067] start_secondary+0x155/0x1b0 [ 1048.130070] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 1048.130078] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130079] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130080] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130081] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130081] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130082] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130083] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130084] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130085] predicted_us = 484097us [ 1048.130087] CPU: 3 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/3 Tainted: G OE 5.3.0-rc6 #23 [ 1048.130088] Hardware name: Huawei 2288H V5/BC11SPSCB0, BIOS 0.39 12/01/2017 [ 1048.130089] Call Trace: [ 1048.130093] dump_stack+0x5a/0x73 [ 1048.130097] menu_select+0x3b0/0x6c0 [ 1048.130102] do_idle+0x1b4/0x290 [ 1048.130107] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 [ 1048.130112] start_secondary+0x155/0x1b0 [ 1048.130115] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 1048.130123] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130123] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130124] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130125] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130126] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130127] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130128] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130129] intervals = 1us [ 1048.130130] predicted_us = 484053us [ 1048.130132] CPU: 3 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/3 Tainted: G OE 5.3.0-rc6 #23 [ 1048.130133] Hardware name: Huawei 2288H V5/BC11SPSCB0, BIOS 0.39 12/01/2017 [ 1048.130134] Call Trace: [ 1048.130137] dump_stack+0x5a/0x73 [ 1048.130141] menu_select+0x3b0/0x6c0 [ 1048.130147] do_idle+0x1b4/0x290 [ 1048.130152] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 [ 1048.130156] start_secondary+0x155/0x1b0 [ 1048.130159] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
> > IOW, it looks like the change simply makes the condition be always false. >
Agree, any good feedback is welcome and we can try it.
Thanks, Shaokun
>> /* >> * If the tick is already stopped, the cost of possible short >> * idle duration misprediction is much higher, because the CPU >> -- >> 1.8.3.1 >> > . >
| |