From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: 'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
'Frederic Weisbecker' <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@linutronix.de>,
'Paul McKenney' <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
'Thomas Ilsche' <thomas.ilsche@tu-dresden.de>,
'Rik van Riel' <riel@surriel.com>,
'Aubrey Li' <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
'Mike Galbraith' <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
'Linux PM' <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:00:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000f01d3bba5$3cba5a00$b62f0e00$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: w74pegSSBpApsw74ueHlNx
On 2018.03.14 07:09 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
... [snip]...
> v2 -> v3: Use local_clock() for time measurements and drop the
> counter, since that should be lightweight enough (as
> suggested by Peter).
I have been testing the latest of everything for a couple of days
now, and everything continues to be great.
Note that I was using a POLL_IDLE_TIME_CHECK_COUNT of 1 anyhow, because
I specifically wanted to test the worst case time through the loop.
i.e. I wanted any potential issue to be 1000 times more likely to find.
My problem is that I don't know of a good test for this specifically.
I'll switch to this V3, along with V4 of the "sched/cpuidle: Idle loop
rework" 7 patch set.
As for energy savings for just this patch only, I would refer readers
to my previous test results from late November, [1], as I haven't
re-done those Phoronix tests yet, but I don't expect the results to
differ much.
[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=151154499710125&w=2
... Doug
next reply other threads:[~2018-03-14 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-14 15:00 Doug Smythies [this message]
2018-03-20 10:52 ` [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle() Rafael J. Wysocki
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-03-25 0:28 Doug Smythies
2018-03-25 11:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-25 21:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-26 6:01 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-14 14:08 Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-22 16:32 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-22 17:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-22 17:19 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-22 17:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-25 20:15 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-25 21:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-25 21:45 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-26 5:59 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-26 7:13 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-26 9:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-26 16:32 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-26 21:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-26 21:48 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-27 17:59 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-27 21:06 ` 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='000f01d3bba5$3cba5a00$b62f0e00$@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.