[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:19 AM, Doug Smythies <> wrote:
>> On 2018.03.22 12:12 Doug Smythies wrote:
>>>On 2018.03.22 09:32 Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 13:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On x86 we don't have to use that time_check_counter thing,
>>>>> sched_clock()
>>>>> is really cheap, not sure if it makes sense on other platforms.
>>>> Are you sure? I saw a 5-10% increase in CPU use,
>>>> for a constant query rate to a memcache style
>>>> workload, with v3 of this patch.
>>> I would very much like to be able to repeat your test results.
>>> However, I am not sure what you mean by "memcache style workload".
>>> Is there a test you can point me to? Say a Phoronix type test, for example.
>>> All of my tests with the V3 of this patch have been fine.
>> What is the difference between sched_clock() talked about herein,
>> and local_clock() used in the patch?
> It is almost the same (modulo offset) unless sched_clock_stable()
> returns 'false'.
>> I'm not sure how good it is but I made a test. I didn't believe
>> the results, so I did it 3 times.
>> V7.3 is as from the git branch.
>> V7.3p is plus the patch adding the counter loop to poll_state.c
>> The test is a tight loop (about 19600 loops per second) running
>> on all 8 CPUs. I can not seem to get my system to use Idle State
>> 0, so I disabled Idle States 1 and 2 to force use of Idle State 0.
>> V7.3 uses a processor package power of 62.5 Watts
>> V7.3p uses a processor package power of 53.4 Watts, or 14.6% less power.
>> The loop times do not change.
>> The Idle state 0 residency per unit time does not change.
> OK, so this means that the results should improve for Rik with this
> patch too. :-)

BTW, can you possibly check how much of a difference it makes to
reduce POLL_IDLE_COUNT in the patch to, say, 500 or even more?

The lower it is, the less noise it will introduce AFAICS.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-23 10:08    [W:0.128 / U:1.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site