[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait C0.2 state

(can you, perchance, look at a MUA that isn't 'broken' ?)

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:04:30AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 2019, at 1:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:00:35PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> >> C0.2 state in umwait and tpause instructions can be enabled or disabled
> >> on a processor through IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR register.
> >>
> >> By default, C0.2 is enabled and the user wait instructions result in
> >> lower power consumption with slower wakeup time.
> >>
> >> But in real time systems which require faster wakeup time although power
> >> savings could be smaller, the administrator needs to disable C0.2 and all
> >> C0.2 requests from user applications revert to C0.1.
> >>
> >> A sysfs interface "/sys/devices/system/cpu/umwait_control/enable_c02" is
> >> created to allow the administrator to control C0.2 state during run time.
> >
> > We already have an interface for applications to convey their latency
> > requirements (pm-qos). We do not need another magic sys variable.
> I’m not sure I agree. This isn’t an overall latency request, and
> setting an absurdly low pm_qos will badly hurt idle power and turbo
> performance. Also, pm_qos isn’t exactly beautiful.
> (I speak from some experience. I may be literally the only person to
> write a driver that listens to dev_pm_qos latency requests. And, in my
> production box, I directly disable c states instead of messing with
> pm_qos.)
> I do wonder whether anyone will ever use this particular control, though.

I agree that pm-qos is pretty terrible; but that doesn't mean we should
just add random control files all over the place.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-11 19:28    [W:0.078 / U:3.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site