Re: [PATCH] cpuidle : use percpu cpuidle in the core code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On 03/30/2012 01:59 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 03/30/2012 05:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

On 03/30/2012 01:25 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 03/30/2012 04:18 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

The usual cpuidle initialization routines are to register the
driver, then register a cpuidle device per cpu.

With the device's state count default initialization with the
driver's state count, the code initialization remains mostly the
same in the different drivers.

We can then add a new function 'cpuidle_register' where we register
the driver and the devices. These devices can be defined in a global
static variable in cpuidle.c. We will be able to factor out and
remove a lot of duplicate lines of code.

As we still have some drivers, with different initialization routines,
we keep 'cpuidle_register_driver' and 'cpuidle_register_device' as low
level initialization routines to do some specific operations on the
cpuidle devices.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   include/linux/cpuidle.h   |    3 +++
   2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
index b8a1faf..2a174e8 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
   #include "cpuidle.h"

   DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device *, cpuidle_devices);
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, cpuidle_device);

@@ -391,6 +392,39 @@ int cpuidle_register_device(struct
cpuidle_device *dev)


+int cpuidle_register(struct cpuidle_driver *drv)
+    int ret, cpu;
+    struct cpuidle_device *dev;
+    ret = cpuidle_register_driver(drv);
+    if (ret)
+        return ret;
+    for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+        dev =&per_cpu(cpuidle_device, cpu);
+        dev->cpu = cpu;
+        ret = cpuidle_register_device(dev);
+        if (ret)
+            goto out_unregister;
+    }

Isn't this racy with respect to CPU hotplug?

No, I don't think so. Do you see a race ?

Well, that depends on when/where this function gets called.
This patch introduces the function. Where is the caller?

There is no caller for the moment because they are in the different arch specific code in the different trees.

But the callers will be in the init calls at boot up.

As of now, if you are calling this in boot-up code, its not racy.

Most of the caller are in the boot-up code, in device_init or module_init. The other ones are doing some specific initialization on the cpuidle_device (cpuinit, like acpi) and can't use the cpuidle_register function.

However, there have been attempts to speed up boot times by trying
to online cpus in parallel with the rest of the kernel initialization[1].
In that case, unless your call is an early init call, it can race
with CPU hotplug.


Aha ! Now I understand the race you were talking about. Thanks for the pointer. It is very interesting.

I realize if the cpus boot up in parallel, that will break a lot of things and, for my concern, that will break most of the cpuidle drivers.

So far the cpu bootup parallelization is not there, so from my POV, my patch is correct as we will factor out in a single place some code which will be potentially broken by this parallelization in the future. It will be easier to fix that in a single place rather in multiple drivers.

Thanks for spotting this potential problem. This is something I will keep in mind for the future.

+    return ret;
+    for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+        dev =&per_cpu(cpuidle_device, cpu);
+        cpuidle_unregister_device(dev);
+    }

This could be improved I guess.. What if the registration fails
for the first cpu itself? Then looping over entire online cpumask
would be a waste of time..

Certainly in a critical section that would make sense, but for 4,8 or 16
cpus in an initialization path at boot time... Anyway, I can add what is
proposed in

What about servers with a lot more CPUs, like say 128 or even more? :-)

Moreover I don't see any downsides to the optimization. So should be good
to add it in any case...

Yes, no problem. I will add it.

Thanks !
  -- Daniel

 <> │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <> Facebook |
<!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<> Blog

linux-pm mailing list

[Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux Resources]     [Free Dating]     [Archives]
Add to Google Powered by Linux