Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Jul 2023 20:06:01 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] cpuidle: Inject tick boundary state |
| |
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 07:27:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> BTW, note that teo records timers as "hits", because it has an idea > about when the next timer should occur and that's because it calls > tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(). > > If it doesn't call that function, it will not be able to tell the > difference between a non-tick timer and any other wakeup, so the > non-tick timer wakeups will then be recorded as "intercepts" which > will skew it towards shallow states over time. That's one of the > reasons why I would prefer to only avoid calling > tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() when the candidate idle state is really > shallow.
Can be fixed using tick_nohz_get_next_hrtimer() I think. Let me try that tomorrow.
| |