From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: 'Rik van Riel' <riel@surriel.com>,
'Mike Galbraith' <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@linutronix.de>,
'Paul McKenney' <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
'Thomas Ilsche' <thomas.ilsche@tu-dresden.de>,
'Frederic Weisbecker' <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
'Linux PM' <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
'Aubrey Li' <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: RE: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 0/6] sched/cpuidle: Idle loop rework
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:52:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000701d3b950$e88e2bb0$b9aa8310$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: uy66ebKjsFfdwuy6Be0qnb
On 2018.03.11 03:22 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, March 11, 2018 8:43:02 AM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
>> On 2018.03.10 15:55 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>On Saturday, March 10, 2018 5:07:36 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
>>>> On 2018.03.10 01:00 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>> ... [snip] ...
>>
>>> The information that they often spend more time than a tick
>>>> period in state 0 in one go *is* relevant, though.
>>>
>>>
>>> That issue can be dealt with in a couple of ways and the patch below is a
>>> rather straightforward attempt to do that. The idea, basically, is to discard
>>> the result of governor prediction if the tick has been stopped alread and
>>> the predicted idle duration is within the tick range.
>>>
>>> Please try it on top of the v3 and tell me if you see an improvement.
>>
>> It seems pretty good so far.
>> See a new line added to the previous graph, "rjwv3plus".
>>
>> http://fast.smythies.com/rjwv3plus_100.png
>
> OK, cool!
>
> Below is a respin of the last patch which also prevents shallow states from
> being chosen due to interactivity_req when the tick is stopped.
>
> You may also add a poll_idle() fix I've just posted:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10274595/
>
> on top of this. It makes quite a bit of a difference for me. :-)
I will add and test, but I already know from testing previous versions
of this patch, from Rik van Riel and myself, that the results will be
awesome.
>
>> I'll do another 100% load on one CPU test overnight, this time with
>> a trace.
The only thing I'll add from the 7 hour overnight test with trace is that
there were 0 occurrences of excessive times spent in idle states above 0.
The histograms show almost entirely those idle states being limited to
one tick time (I am using a 1000 Hz kernel). Exceptions:
Idle State: 3 CPU: 0: 1 occurrence of 1790 uSec (which is O.K. anyhow)
Idle State: 3 CPU: 6: 1 occurrence of 2372 uSec (which is O.K. anyhow)
... Doug
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-11 15:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-09 9:34 [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 0/6] sched/cpuidle: Idle loop rework Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-09 9:36 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 1/6] time: tick-sched: Reorganize idle tick management code Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-09 9:38 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 2/6] sched: idle: Do not stop the tick upfront in the idle loop Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-09 9:39 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 3/6] sched: idle: Do not stop the tick before cpuidle_idle_call() Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-09 9:41 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 4/6] cpuidle: Return nohz hint from cpuidle_select() Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-09 9:46 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 5/6] sched: idle: Select idle state before stopping the tick Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-11 1:44 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2018-03-11 10:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-09 9:49 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 6/6] cpuidle: menu: Refine idle state selection for running tick Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-09 15:19 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 0/6] sched/cpuidle: Idle loop rework Rik van Riel
2018-03-10 5:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2018-03-10 9:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-10 7:41 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-10 9:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-10 16:07 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-10 23:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-11 7:43 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-11 10:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-11 10:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-11 15:52 ` Doug Smythies [this message]
2018-03-11 23:02 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-12 9:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='000701d3b950$e88e2bb0$b9aa8310$@net' \
--to=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgalbraith@suse.de \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.ilsche@tu-dresden.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.