cpuidle: teo: Clarify two code comments

Rewrite two code comments suposed to explain its behavior that are too
concise or not sufficiently clear.

No functional impact.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
Tested-by: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@linux.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/8472971.T7Z3S40VBb@rjwysocki.net
[ rjw: Fixed 2 typos in new comments ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-01-13 19:41:55 +01:00
parent b9a6af26bd
commit e24f8a55de

View File

@@ -154,9 +154,10 @@ static void teo_update(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev)
if (cpu_data->time_span_ns >= cpu_data->sleep_length_ns) {
/*
* One of the safety nets has triggered or the wakeup was close
* enough to the closest timer event expected at the idle state
* selection time to be discarded.
* This causes the wakeup to be counted as a hit regardless of
* the real idle duration which doesn't need to be computed
* because the wakeup has been close enough to an anticipated
* timer.
*/
measured_ns = U64_MAX;
} else {
@@ -302,8 +303,13 @@ static int teo_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev,
cpu_data->time_span_ns = local_clock();
/*
* Set the expected sleep length to infinity in case of an early
* return.
* Set the sleep length to infinity in case the invocation of
* tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() below is skipped, in which case it won't
* be known whether or not the subsequent wakeup is caused by a timer.
* It is generally fine to count the wakeup as an intercept then, except
* for the cases when the CPU is mostly woken up by timers and there may
* be opportunities to ask for a deeper idle state when no imminent
* timers are scheduled which may be missed.
*/
cpu_data->sleep_length_ns = KTIME_MAX;