From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: 'Thomas Ilsche' <thomas.ilsche@tu-dresden.de>
Cc: 'Linux PM' <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
'Frederic Weisbecker' <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@linutronix.de>,
'Paul McKenney' <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
'Rik van Riel' <riel@surriel.com>,
'Aubrey Li' <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
'Mike Galbraith' <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: RE: [RFT][PATCH v5 0/7] sched/cpuidle: Idle loop rework
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:15:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <002501d3c06f$0e7cf750$2b76e5f0$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: yE6GempwD1KonyE6LeVquN
On 2018.03.20 03:02 Thomas Ilsche wrote:
...[snip]...
> Consider the Skylake server system which has residencies in C1E of
> 20 us and C6 of 800 us. I use a small while(1) {usleep(300);}
> unsynchronized pinned to each core. While this is an artificial
> case, it is a very innocent one - easy to predict and regular. Between
> vanilla 4.16.0-rc5 and idle-loop/v6, the power consumption increases
> from 149.7 W to 158.1 W. On 4.16.0-rc5, the cores sleep almost
> entirely in C1E. With the patches applied, the cores spend ~75% of
> their sleep time in C6, ~25% in C1E. The average time/usage for C1E is
> also lower with v6 at ~350 us rather than the ~550 us in C6 (and in
> C1E with the baseline). Generally the new menu governor seems to chose
> C1E if the next timer is an enabled sched timer - which occasionally
> interrupts the sleep-interval into two C1E sleeps rather than one C6.
>
> Manually disabling C6, reduces power consumption back to 149.5 W.
...[snip]...
Note that one of the tests that I normally do is a work/sleep
frequency sweep from 100 to 2100 Hz, typically at a lowish
workload. I didn't notice anything odd with this test:
http://fast.smythies.com/rjw_freq_sweep.png
However, your test is at 3333 Hz (well, minus overheads).
I did the same as you. And was surprised to confirm
your power findings. In my case package power goes from
~8.6 watts to ~7.3 watts with idle state 4 (C6) disabled.
I am getting different residency times than you though.
I also observe different overheads between idle state 4
being disabled or not. i.e. my actual loop frequency
drops from ~2801 Hz to ~2754 Hz.
Example residencies over the previous minute:
Idle state 4 (C6) disabled (seconds):
Idle state 0: 0.001119
Idle state 1: 0.056638
Idle state 2: 13.100550
Idle state 3: 446.266744
Idle state 4: 0.000000
Idle state 4 (C6) enabled (seconds):
Idle state 0: 0.034502
Idle state 1: 1.949595
Idle state 2: 78.291793
Idle state 3: 96.467974
Idle state 4: 286.247524
... Doug
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-20 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-15 21:59 [RFT][PATCH v5 0/7] sched/cpuidle: Idle loop rework Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-15 22:03 ` [RFT][PATCH v5 1/7] time: tick-sched: Reorganize idle tick management code Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-15 22:05 ` [RFT][PATCH v5 2/7] sched: idle: Do not stop the tick upfront in the idle loop Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-15 22:07 ` [RFT][PATCH v5 3/7] sched: idle: Do not stop the tick before cpuidle_idle_call() Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-15 22:11 ` [RFT][PATCH v5 4/7] cpuidle: Return nohz hint from cpuidle_select() Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-19 9:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-19 9:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-15 22:13 ` [RFT][PATCH v5 5/7] sched: idle: Select idle state before stopping the tick Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-15 22:16 ` [RFT][PATCH v5 6/7] cpuidle: menu: Refine idle state selection for running tick Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-19 9:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-19 9:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-15 22:19 ` [RFT][PATCH v5 7/7] cpuidle: menu: Avoid selecting shallow states with stopped tick Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-19 12:47 ` Thomas Ilsche
2018-03-19 18:21 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-20 17:15 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-20 17:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-17 12:42 ` [RFT][PATCH v5 0/7] sched/cpuidle: Idle loop rework Thomas Ilsche
2018-03-17 16:11 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-18 11:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-18 16:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-19 10:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-19 11:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-19 11:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-19 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-20 10:01 ` Thomas Ilsche
2018-03-20 10:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-20 17:15 ` Doug Smythies [this message]
2018-03-20 21:03 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-21 6:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-21 13:51 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-21 13:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-18 15:30 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-18 16:06 ` 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='002501d3c06f$0e7cf750$2b76e5f0$@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=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--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.