lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFT][PATCH v7 5/8] cpuidle: Return nohz hint from cpuidle_select()
Date
On Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:41:54 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2018.03.21 23:25 Doug Smythies wrote:
> > On 2018.03.21 15:15 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Thomas Ilsche 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.
>
> I am not seeing any issues at all with V7.
>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > O.K. I am seeing some weirdness.
> > On my system with both V7.2 and V7.2 plus this patch, I observe
> > A spike in Idle State 1 residency every 34+ minutes. And slightly
> > higher average idle power than before.
> > (I might not have done V7 idle tests long enough).
>
> I re-did the idle test on V7, and for longer.
> It is great.
> See line added to the idle graph for V7.2+:
>
> http://fast.smythies.com/rjw_v72p_v7_idle.png
>
> >
> > It can be seen in the frequency sweep I did earlier today, with V7.2:
> >
> > http://fast.smythies.com/rjw_freq_sweep_72_combined.png
> >
> > Despite the note on the graph that says it might be real, I don't think
> > it is (I forgot to delete the note).
> >
> > With V7.2+ sometimes the event occurs at 17 minute intervals.
> > Here is a idle graph (for reference: we have seen idle package power
> > pretty steady at ~3.7 watts before).
>
> Now shown on the new graph. Link above.

Thanks for the data!

I will send another update of patch [5/8] shortly which is closer to the
original v7 of it than the v7.[1-2].

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-22 18:22    [W:0.086 / U:2.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site