lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFT][PATCH v7 5/8] cpuidle: Return nohz hint from cpuidle_select()
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Thomas Ilsche
<thomas.ilsche@tu-dresden.de> wrote:
> On 2018-03-21 15:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>>
>> So please disregard this one entirely and take the v7.2 replacement
>> instead of it:https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10299429/
>>
>> The current versions (including the above) is in the git branch at
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git \
>> idle-loop-v7.2
>
>
> With v7.2 (tested on SKL-SP from git) I see similar behavior in idle
> as with v5: several cores which just keep the sched tick enabled.
> Worse yet, some go only in C1 (not even C1E!?) despite sleeping the
> full sched tick.
> The resulting power consumption is ~105 W instead of ~ 70 W.
>
> https://wwwpub.zih.tu-dresden.de/~tilsche/powernightmares/v7_2_skl_sp_idle.png
>
> I have briefly ran v7 and I believe it was also affected.

Then it looks like menu_select() stubbornly thinks that the idle
duration will be within the tick boundary on those cores.

That may be because the bumping up of the correction factor in
menu_reflect() is too conservative or it may be necessary to do
something radical to measured_us in menu_update() in case of a tick
wakeup combined with a large next_timer_us value.

For starters, please see if the attached patch (on top of the
idle-loop-v7.2 git branch) changes this behavior in any way.
---
drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
@@ -498,7 +498,7 @@ static void menu_reflect(struct cpuidle_
* correction factor. Use 0.75 * RESOLUTION (which is easy
* enough to get) that should work fine on the average.
*/
- new_factor += RESOLUTION / 2 + RESOLUTION / 4;
+ new_factor += RESOLUTION;
data->correction_factor[data->bucket] = new_factor;
} else {
data->needs_update = 1;
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-21 23:16    [W:0.110 / U:2.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site