| Message ID | 1398859263-7632-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another > function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. > Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes > a nested indentation level. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Well, this conflicts with https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to return negative values because of https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). Any ideas how to resolve that? > --- > kernel/sched/idle.c | 161 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c > index b8cd302..f2f4bc9 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c > @@ -63,6 +63,90 @@ void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void) > local_irq_enable(); > } > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE > +static int __cpuidle_idle_call(void) > +{ > + struct cpuidle_device *dev = __this_cpu_read(cpuidle_devices); > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev); > + int next_state, entered_state, ret; > + bool broadcast; > + > + /* > + * Check if the cpuidle framework is ready, otherwise fallback > + * to the default arch specific idle method > + */ > + ret = cpuidle_enabled(drv, dev); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + /* > + * Ask the governor to choose an idle state it thinks > + * it is convenient to go to. There is *always* a > + * convenient idle state > + */ > + next_state = cpuidle_select(drv, dev); > + > + /* > + * The idle task must be scheduled, it is pointless to > + * go to idle, just update no idle residency and get > + * out of this function > + */ > + if (current_clr_polling_and_test()) { > + dev->last_residency = 0; > + entered_state = next_state; > + local_irq_enable(); > + } else { > + broadcast = !!(drv->states[next_state].flags & > + CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP); > + > + if (broadcast) > + /* > + * Tell the time framework to switch to a > + * broadcast timer because our local timer > + * will be shutdown. If a local timer is used > + * from another cpu as a broadcast timer, this > + * call may fail if it is not available > + */ > + ret = clockevents_notify( > + CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_ENTER, > + &dev->cpu); > + > + if (!ret) { > + trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(next_state, dev->cpu); > + > + /* > + * Enter the idle state previously returned by > + * the governor decision. This function will > + * block until an interrupt occurs and will > + * take care of re-enabling the local > + * interrupts > + */ > + entered_state = cpuidle_enter(drv, dev, next_state); > + > + trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, dev->cpu); > + > + if (broadcast) > + clockevents_notify( > + CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_EXIT, > + &dev->cpu); > + > + /* > + * Give the governor an opportunity to reflect > + * on the outcome > + */ > + cpuidle_reflect(dev, entered_state); > + } > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > +#else > +static int inline __cpuidle_idle_call(void) > +{ > + return -ENOSYS; > +} > +#endif > + > /** > * cpuidle_idle_call - the main idle function > * > @@ -70,10 +154,7 @@ void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void) > */ > static void cpuidle_idle_call(void) > { > - struct cpuidle_device *dev = __this_cpu_read(cpuidle_devices); > - struct cpuidle_driver *drv = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev); > - int next_state, entered_state, ret; > - bool broadcast; > + int ret; > > /* > * Check if the idle task must be rescheduled. If it is the > @@ -100,80 +181,10 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void) > rcu_idle_enter(); > > /* > - * Check if the cpuidle framework is ready, otherwise fallback > - * to the default arch specific idle method > - */ > - ret = cpuidle_enabled(drv, dev); > - > - if (!ret) { > - /* > - * Ask the governor to choose an idle state it thinks > - * it is convenient to go to. There is *always* a > - * convenient idle state > - */ > - next_state = cpuidle_select(drv, dev); > - > - /* > - * The idle task must be scheduled, it is pointless to > - * go to idle, just update no idle residency and get > - * out of this function > - */ > - if (current_clr_polling_and_test()) { > - dev->last_residency = 0; > - entered_state = next_state; > - local_irq_enable(); > - } else { > - broadcast = !!(drv->states[next_state].flags & > - CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP); > - > - if (broadcast) > - /* > - * Tell the time framework to switch > - * to a broadcast timer because our > - * local timer will be shutdown. If a > - * local timer is used from another > - * cpu as a broadcast timer, this call > - * may fail if it is not available > - */ > - ret = clockevents_notify( > - CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_ENTER, > - &dev->cpu); > - > - if (!ret) { > - trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(next_state, dev->cpu); > - > - /* > - * Enter the idle state previously > - * returned by the governor > - * decision. This function will block > - * until an interrupt occurs and will > - * take care of re-enabling the local > - * interrupts > - */ > - entered_state = cpuidle_enter(drv, dev, > - next_state); > - > - trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, > - dev->cpu); > - > - if (broadcast) > - clockevents_notify( > - CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_EXIT, > - &dev->cpu); > - > - /* > - * Give the governor an opportunity to reflect on the > - * outcome > - */ > - cpuidle_reflect(dev, entered_state); > - } > - } > - } > - > - /* > * We can't use the cpuidle framework, let's use the default > * idle routine > */ > + ret = __cpuidle_idle_call(); > if (ret) > arch_cpu_idle(); > >
On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:47:25 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another > > function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. > > Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes > > a nested indentation level. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > > Well, this conflicts with > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > > which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to > return negative values because of > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ > > (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). Moreover (along the lines of Nico said) after https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ we actually don't need the #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE in your patch, because cpuidle_select() for CONFIG_CPU_IDLE unset is a static inline returning a negative number and the compiler should optimize out the blocks that depend on it being non-negative. Thanks!
On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another >> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. >> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes >> a nested indentation level. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > > Well, this conflicts with > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > > which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to > return negative values because of > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ > > (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). > > Any ideas how to resolve that? I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before than mines then I will refresh and resend them. I am open to any other suggestion. Thanks -- Daniel
On 05/01/2014 12:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:47:25 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another >>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. >>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes >>> a nested indentation level. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >> >> Well, this conflicts with >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ >> >> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to >> return negative values because of >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ >> >> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). > > Moreover (along the lines of Nico said) after https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > we actually don't need the #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE in your patch, because cpuidle_select() > for CONFIG_CPU_IDLE unset is a static inline returning a negative number and the compiler > should optimize out the blocks that depend on it being non-negative. Thanks for the head up. Actually that was to solve a compilation issue with the next patch when adding the cpuidle state in the struct rq. When the option CPU_IDLE is not set, the code assinging the cpu idle state in the rq is still there while in the struct rq the field is compiled out with the ifdef macro. If I rely on the compiler optimization, the compilation error will happen.
On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:59:11 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 05/01/2014 12:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:47:25 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another > >>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. > >>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes > >>> a nested indentation level. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > >> > >> Well, this conflicts with > >> > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > >> > >> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to > >> return negative values because of > >> > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ > >> > >> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). > > > > Moreover (along the lines of Nico said) after https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > > we actually don't need the #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE in your patch, because cpuidle_select() > > for CONFIG_CPU_IDLE unset is a static inline returning a negative number and the compiler > > should optimize out the blocks that depend on it being non-negative. > > Thanks for the head up. > > Actually that was to solve a compilation issue with the next patch when > adding the cpuidle state in the struct rq. > > When the option CPU_IDLE is not set, the code assinging the cpu idle > state in the rq is still there while in the struct rq the field is > compiled out with the ifdef macro. If I rely on the compiler > optimization, the compilation error will happen. I see. If you don't put the new idle_state field in struct_rq under the #ifdef, you won't need to worry about the build problem. Alternatively, you can define #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE static inline void rq_set_idle_state(struct rq *rq, struct cpuidle_state *state) { rq->idle_state = state; } #else static inline void rq_set_idle_state(struct rq *rq, struct cpuidle_state *state) {} #endif and use rq_set_idle_state() to set that field.
On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:52:27 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another > >> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. > >> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes > >> a nested indentation level. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > > > > Well, this conflicts with > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > > > > which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to > > return negative values because of > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ > > > > (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). > > > > Any ideas how to resolve that? > > I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before > than mines then I will refresh and resend them. Actually, I was planning the merge them myself, because they are more cpuidle than the scheduler, but either way would be fine. > I am open to any other suggestion. Please see the other message I've just sent. :-)
On 05/02/2014 02:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:59:11 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 05/01/2014 12:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:47:25 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another >>>>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. >>>>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes >>>>> a nested indentation level. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> Well, this conflicts with >>>> >>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ >>>> >>>> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to >>>> return negative values because of >>>> >>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ >>>> >>>> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). >>> >>> Moreover (along the lines of Nico said) after https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ >>> we actually don't need the #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE in your patch, because cpuidle_select() >>> for CONFIG_CPU_IDLE unset is a static inline returning a negative number and the compiler >>> should optimize out the blocks that depend on it being non-negative. >> >> Thanks for the head up. >> >> Actually that was to solve a compilation issue with the next patch when >> adding the cpuidle state in the struct rq. >> >> When the option CPU_IDLE is not set, the code assinging the cpu idle >> state in the rq is still there while in the struct rq the field is >> compiled out with the ifdef macro. If I rely on the compiler >> optimization, the compilation error will happen. > > I see. > > If you don't put the new idle_state field in struct_rq under the #ifdef, > you won't need to worry about the build problem. > > Alternatively, you can define > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE > static inline void rq_set_idle_state(struct rq *rq, struct cpuidle_state *state) > { > rq->idle_state = state; > } > #else > static inline void rq_set_idle_state(struct rq *rq, struct cpuidle_state *state) {} > #endif > > and use rq_set_idle_state() to set that field. Thanks, I will look at one or another solution.
On 05/02/2014 02:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:52:27 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another >>>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. >>>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes >>>> a nested indentation level. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >>> >>> Well, this conflicts with >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ >>> >>> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to >>> return negative values because of >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ >>> >>> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). >>> >>> Any ideas how to resolve that? >> >> I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before >> than mines then I will refresh and resend them. > > Actually, I was planning the merge them myself, because they are more cpuidle > than the scheduler, but either way would be fine. Well I have some patches for the scheduler which will need these modifications. Is it possible to merge them throw a common branch to be shared between sched and pm ? >> I am open to any other suggestion. > > Please see the other message I've just sent. :-) >
On Friday, May 02, 2014 03:35:23 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 05/02/2014 02:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:52:27 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another > >>>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. > >>>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes > >>>> a nested indentation level. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > >>> > >>> Well, this conflicts with > >>> > >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > >>> > >>> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to > >>> return negative values because of > >>> > >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ > >>> > >>> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). > >>> > >>> Any ideas how to resolve that? > >> > >> I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before > >> than mines then I will refresh and resend them. > > > > Actually, I was planning the merge them myself, because they are more cpuidle > > than the scheduler, but either way would be fine. > > Well I have some patches for the scheduler which will need these > modifications. Is it possible to merge them throw a common branch to be > shared between sched and pm ? That would be perfectly fine by me, but I'm not sure what Ingo and Peter think about that. I can set up a branch with sched/idle/cpuidle changes.
On Fri, 2 May 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:59:11 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > On 05/01/2014 12:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:47:25 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > >>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another > > >>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. > > >>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes > > >>> a nested indentation level. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > > >> > > >> Well, this conflicts with > > >> > > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > > >> > > >> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to > > >> return negative values because of > > >> > > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ > > >> > > >> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). > > > > > > Moreover (along the lines of Nico said) after https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > > > we actually don't need the #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE in your patch, because cpuidle_select() > > > for CONFIG_CPU_IDLE unset is a static inline returning a negative number and the compiler > > > should optimize out the blocks that depend on it being non-negative. > > > > Thanks for the head up. > > > > Actually that was to solve a compilation issue with the next patch when > > adding the cpuidle state in the struct rq. > > > > When the option CPU_IDLE is not set, the code assinging the cpu idle > > state in the rq is still there while in the struct rq the field is > > compiled out with the ifdef macro. If I rely on the compiler > > optimization, the compilation error will happen. > > I see. > > If you don't put the new idle_state field in struct_rq under the #ifdef, > you won't need to worry about the build problem. > > Alternatively, you can define > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE > static inline void rq_set_idle_state(struct rq *rq, struct cpuidle_state *state) > { > rq->idle_state = state; > } > #else > static inline void rq_set_idle_state(struct rq *rq, struct cpuidle_state *state) {} > #endif > > and use rq_set_idle_state() to set that field. Agreed. And a similar accessor for consumers to get this value in order to avoid #ifdef's there as well. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:32:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > That would be perfectly fine by me, but I'm not sure what Ingo and Peter think > about that. > > I can set up a branch with sched/idle/cpuidle changes. Ingo typically likes things like that. I'm still a git Luddite, I'll learn someday :-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c index b8cd302..f2f4bc9 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c @@ -63,6 +63,90 @@ void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void) local_irq_enable(); } +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE +static int __cpuidle_idle_call(void) +{ + struct cpuidle_device *dev = __this_cpu_read(cpuidle_devices); + struct cpuidle_driver *drv = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev); + int next_state, entered_state, ret; + bool broadcast; + + /* + * Check if the cpuidle framework is ready, otherwise fallback + * to the default arch specific idle method + */ + ret = cpuidle_enabled(drv, dev); + if (ret) + return ret; + + /* + * Ask the governor to choose an idle state it thinks + * it is convenient to go to. There is *always* a + * convenient idle state + */ + next_state = cpuidle_select(drv, dev); + + /* + * The idle task must be scheduled, it is pointless to + * go to idle, just update no idle residency and get + * out of this function + */ + if (current_clr_polling_and_test()) { + dev->last_residency = 0; + entered_state = next_state; + local_irq_enable(); + } else { + broadcast = !!(drv->states[next_state].flags & + CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP); + + if (broadcast) + /* + * Tell the time framework to switch to a + * broadcast timer because our local timer + * will be shutdown. If a local timer is used + * from another cpu as a broadcast timer, this + * call may fail if it is not available + */ + ret = clockevents_notify( + CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_ENTER, + &dev->cpu); + + if (!ret) { + trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(next_state, dev->cpu); + + /* + * Enter the idle state previously returned by + * the governor decision. This function will + * block until an interrupt occurs and will + * take care of re-enabling the local + * interrupts + */ + entered_state = cpuidle_enter(drv, dev, next_state); + + trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, dev->cpu); + + if (broadcast) + clockevents_notify( + CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_EXIT, + &dev->cpu); + + /* + * Give the governor an opportunity to reflect + * on the outcome + */ + cpuidle_reflect(dev, entered_state); + } + } + + return 0; +} +#else +static int inline __cpuidle_idle_call(void) +{ + return -ENOSYS; +} +#endif + /** * cpuidle_idle_call - the main idle function * @@ -70,10 +154,7 @@ void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void) */ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void) { - struct cpuidle_device *dev = __this_cpu_read(cpuidle_devices); - struct cpuidle_driver *drv = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev); - int next_state, entered_state, ret; - bool broadcast; + int ret; /* * Check if the idle task must be rescheduled. If it is the @@ -100,80 +181,10 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void) rcu_idle_enter(); /* - * Check if the cpuidle framework is ready, otherwise fallback - * to the default arch specific idle method - */ - ret = cpuidle_enabled(drv, dev); - - if (!ret) { - /* - * Ask the governor to choose an idle state it thinks - * it is convenient to go to. There is *always* a - * convenient idle state - */ - next_state = cpuidle_select(drv, dev); - - /* - * The idle task must be scheduled, it is pointless to - * go to idle, just update no idle residency and get - * out of this function - */ - if (current_clr_polling_and_test()) { - dev->last_residency = 0; - entered_state = next_state; - local_irq_enable(); - } else { - broadcast = !!(drv->states[next_state].flags & - CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP); - - if (broadcast) - /* - * Tell the time framework to switch - * to a broadcast timer because our - * local timer will be shutdown. If a - * local timer is used from another - * cpu as a broadcast timer, this call - * may fail if it is not available - */ - ret = clockevents_notify( - CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_ENTER, - &dev->cpu); - - if (!ret) { - trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(next_state, dev->cpu); - - /* - * Enter the idle state previously - * returned by the governor - * decision. This function will block - * until an interrupt occurs and will - * take care of re-enabling the local - * interrupts - */ - entered_state = cpuidle_enter(drv, dev, - next_state); - - trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, - dev->cpu); - - if (broadcast) - clockevents_notify( - CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_EXIT, - &dev->cpu); - - /* - * Give the governor an opportunity to reflect on the - * outcome - */ - cpuidle_reflect(dev, entered_state); - } - } - } - - /* * We can't use the cpuidle framework, let's use the default * idle routine */ + ret = __cpuidle_idle_call(); if (ret) arch_cpu_idle();
Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes a nested indentation level. Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> --- kernel/sched/idle.c | 161 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)