mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: menu: Remove incorrect unlikely() annotation
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 15:17:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <73439919-e24d-4bd5-a7ed-d7633beb5e4f@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260105-annotated_idle-v1-1-10ddf0771b58@debian.org>

On 1/5/26 14:37, Breno Leitao wrote:
> The unlikely() annotation on the early-return condition in menu_select()
> is incorrect on systems with only one idle state (e.g., ARM64 servers
> with a single ACPI LPI state). Branch profiling shows 100% misprediction
> on such systems since drv->state_count <= 1 is always true.
> 
> On platforms where only state0 is available, this path is the common
> case, not an unlikely edge case. Remove the misleading annotation to
> let the branch predictor learn the actual behavior.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> index 64d6f7a1c776..ef9c5a84643e 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>  		data->bucket = BUCKETS - 1;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (unlikely(drv->state_count <= 1 || latency_req == 0) ||
> +	if (drv->state_count <= 1 || latency_req == 0 ||
>  	    ((data->next_timer_ns < drv->states[1].target_residency_ns ||
>  	      latency_req < drv->states[1].exit_latency_ns) &&
>  	     !dev->states_usage[0].disable)) {
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 34aa263125b6732375abcb908d73d98169154bb5
> change-id: 20260105-annotated_idle-d6b614ecd207
> 
> Best regards,
> --  
> Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
> 
> 

Fine with me per se, I don't think the unlikely() annotation makes a
difference for the 'good case' either, but if you run into this I'd be curious
if you can see a difference with menu (which should stop the tick on every idle enter
regardless) and teo (which should never stop the tick on state_count == 1).
Alternative you can also just change the menu branch to not stop the tick.
I'd like to know if we need something more sophisticated generally here.

  reply	other threads:[~2026-01-05 15:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-05 14:37 Breno Leitao
2026-01-05 15:17 ` Christian Loehle [this message]
2026-01-05 16:41   ` Breno Leitao
2026-01-09 20:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=73439919-e24d-4bd5-a7ed-d7633beb5e4f@arm.com \
    --to=christian.loehle@arm.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=leitao@debian.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®