6.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com
[ Upstream commit 779b1a1cb13ae17028aeddb2fbbdba97357a1e15 ]
Occasionally, the exit latency of the idle state selected by the menu governor may exceed the PM QoS CPU wakeup latency limit. Namely, if the scheduler tick has been stopped already and predicted_ns is greater than the tick period length, the governor may return an idle state whose exit latency exceeds latency_req because that decision is made before checking the current idle state's exit latency.
For instance, say that there are 3 idle states, 0, 1, and 2. For idle states 0 and 1, the exit latency is equal to the target residency and the values are 0 and 5 us, respectively. State 2 is deeper and has the exit latency and target residency of 200 us and 2 ms (which is greater than the tick period length), respectively.
Say that predicted_ns is equal to TICK_NSEC and the PM QoS latency limit is 20 us. After the first two iterations of the main loop in menu_select(), idx becomes 1 and in the third iteration of it the target residency of the current state (state 2) is greater than predicted_ns. State 2 is not a polling one and predicted_ns is not less than TICK_NSEC, so the check on whether or not the tick has been stopped is done. Say that the tick has been stopped already and there are no imminent timers (that is, delta_tick is greater than the target residency of state 2). In that case, idx becomes 2 and it is returned immediately, but the exit latency of state 2 exceeds the latency limit.
Address this issue by modifying the code to compare the exit latency of the current idle state (idle state i) with the latency limit before comparing its target residency with predicted_ns, which allows one more exit_latency_ns check that becomes redundant to be dropped.
However, after the above change, latency_req cannot take the predicted_ns value any more, which takes place after commit 38f83090f515 ("cpuidle: menu: Remove iowait influence"), because it may cause a polling state to be returned prematurely.
In the context of the previous example say that predicted_ns is 3000 and the PM QoS latency limit is still 20 us. Additionally, say that idle state 0 is a polling one. Moving the exit_latency_ns check before the target_residency_ns one causes the loop to terminate in the second iteration, before the target_residency_ns check, so idle state 0 will be returned even though previously state 1 would be returned if there were no imminent timers.
For this reason, remove the assignment of the predicted_ns value to latency_req from the code.
Fixes: 5ef499cd571c ("cpuidle: menu: Handle stopped tick more aggressively") Cc: 4.17+ stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.17+ Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Reviewed-by: Christian Loehle christian.loehle@arm.com Link: https://patch.msgid.link/5043159.31r3eYUQgx@rafael.j.wysocki Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c | 29 ++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c @@ -293,20 +293,15 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_dr return 0; }
- if (tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) { - /* - * If the tick is already stopped, the cost of possible short - * idle duration misprediction is much higher, because the CPU - * may be stuck in a shallow idle state for a long time as a - * result of it. In that case say we might mispredict and use - * the known time till the closest timer event for the idle - * state selection. - */ - if (predicted_ns < TICK_NSEC) - predicted_ns = data->next_timer_ns; - } else if (latency_req > predicted_ns) { - latency_req = predicted_ns; - } + /* + * If the tick is already stopped, the cost of possible short idle + * duration misprediction is much higher, because the CPU may be stuck + * in a shallow idle state for a long time as a result of it. In that + * case, say we might mispredict and use the known time till the closest + * timer event for the idle state selection. + */ + if (tick_nohz_tick_stopped() && predicted_ns < TICK_NSEC) + predicted_ns = data->next_timer_ns;
/* * Find the idle state with the lowest power while satisfying @@ -322,13 +317,15 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_dr if (idx == -1) idx = i; /* first enabled state */
+ if (s->exit_latency_ns > latency_req) + break; + if (s->target_residency_ns > predicted_ns) { /* * Use a physical idle state, not busy polling, unless * a timer is going to trigger soon enough. */ if ((drv->states[idx].flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING) && - s->exit_latency_ns <= latency_req && s->target_residency_ns <= data->next_timer_ns) { predicted_ns = s->target_residency_ns; idx = i; @@ -360,8 +357,6 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_dr
return idx; } - if (s->exit_latency_ns > latency_req) - break;
idx = i; }