[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] sched/fair: Penalty the cfs task which executes mwait/hlt
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:18:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, January 13, 2020 11:43:14 AM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Anyone, what will it take to get MPERF/TSC 'working' ?
> The same thing that intel_pstate does.

But intel_pstate cheats, it has a FMS listing and possible 'interesting'
chips are excluded. For instance, Core2 has APERF/MPERF, but
intel_pstate does not support Core2.

Simlarly, intel_pstate does (obviously) not support AMD chips, even tho
those have APERF/MPERF.

Although I suppose Core2 doesn't have VMX and is therefore less
interesting, but then we'd need to gate the logic with something like:

static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF) &&
(static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_VMX) || static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SVM)

> Generally speaking, it shifts the mperf values by a number of positions
> depending on the CPU model, but that is 1 except for KNL.
> See get_target_pstate().

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's the same KNL hack as
TurboStat has.

Is that really the only known case?

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-13 13:30    [W:0.110 / U:2.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site