Re: [PATCH v2] cpuidle: Deny idle entry when CPU already have IPI interrupt pending

"Maulik Shah (mkshah)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-pm,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>

On 8/18/2026 9:40 PM, Christian Loehle wrote:
> On 4/13/26 06:03, Maulik Shah (mkshah) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/2026 8:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 6:08 AM Maulik Shah <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> CPU can get IPI interrupt from another CPU while it is executing
>>>> cpuidle_select() or about to execute same. The selection do not account
>>>> for pending interrupts and may continue to enter selected idle state only
>>>> to exit immediately.
>>>>
>>>> Example trace collected when there is cross CPU IPI.
>>>>
>>>>  [000] 154.892148: sched_waking: comm=sugov:4 pid=491 prio=-1 target_cpu=007
>>>>  [000] 154.892148: ipi_raise: target_mask=00000000,00000080 (Function call interrupts)
>>>>  [007] 154.892162: cpu_idle: state=2 cpu_id=7
>>>>  [007] 154.892208: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>>>  [007] 154.892211: irq_handler_entry: irq=2 name=IPI
>>>>  [007] 154.892211: ipi_entry: (Function call interrupts)
>>>>  [007] 154.892213: sched_wakeup: comm=sugov:4 pid=491 prio=-1 target_cpu=007
>>>>  [007] 154.892214: ipi_exit: (Function call interrupts)
>>>>
>>>> This impacts performance and the above count increments.
>>>>
>>>> commit ccde6525183c ("smp: Introduce a helper function to check for pending
>>>> IPIs") already introduced a helper function to check the pending IPIs and
>>>> it is used in pmdomain governor to deny the cluster level idle state when
>>>> there is a pending IPI on any of cluster CPUs.
>>>>
>>>> This however does not stop CPU to enter CPU level idle state. Make use of
>>>> same at CPUidle to deny the idle entry when there is already IPI pending.
>>>>
>>>> With change observing glmark2 [1] off screen scores improving in the range
>>>> of 25% to 30% on Qualcomm lemans-evk board which is arm64 based having two
>>>> clusters each with 4 CPUs.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/glmark2/glmark2
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Maulik Shah <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Fix cpumask argument of cpus_peek_for_pending_ipi() to take single cpu
>>>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 3 +++
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>>>> index c7876e9e024f9076663063ad21cfc69343fdbbe7..c01e57df64ca5af8c28da3d971500b3f38306cdf 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>>>> @@ -224,6 +224,9 @@ noinstr int cpuidle_enter_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>>>         bool broadcast = !!(target_state->flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP);
>>>>         ktime_t time_start, time_end;
>>>>
>>>> +       if (cpus_peek_for_pending_ipi(cpumask_of(dev->cpu)))
>>>> +               return -EBUSY;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Why do you want to check it here and not in cpuidle_idle_call(), for example?
>>
>> It can be moved in cpuidle_idle_call(), just before call_cpuidle() too.
>> The intention is to check after cpuidle_select() is done.
>>
> What do we do about the cpuidle stats in that case?
> I'm thinking primiarly about last_residency_ns and rejected here.

As the idle entry will not happen (call_cpuidle() is not invoked) 
the stats would also not required to be updated.

Thanks,
Maulik
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.