From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: 'Rik van Riel' <riel@redhat.com>,
"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
'Viresh Kumar' <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
'Srinivas Pandruvada' <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
"'Chen, Yu C'" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, 'Arto Jantunen' <viiru@iki.fi>,
'Len Brown' <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: RE: SKL BOOT FAILURE unless idle=nomwait (was Re: PROBLEM: Cpufreq constantly keeps frequency at maximum on 4.5-rc4)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:45:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <003701d17a5d$cab287a0$601796e0$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0i0cx_xYUwFWDX5nE+rNgbX4TY0ATYuD3rEi86Ky5cA5A@mail.gmail.com>
On 2016.03.09 15:18 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
>> Does the direction that this thread has taken mean that those two
>> commits that Arto identified might now not be reverted?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Commits:
>> 9c4b2867ed7c8c8784dd417ffd16e705e81eb145
>> a9ceb78bc75ca47972096372ff3d48648b16317a
>>
>> Recall that increased energy consumption was also isolated to those
>> two commits for some types of workflow. The suggestion is that the
>> commits should be reverted anyhow.
>>
>> What seems to be happening is that CPUs are deciding to stay in idle
>> state 0 a lot more, when they actually could / should be in a deeper
>> idle state.
>>
>> Test time is always: 33 minutes and 20 seconds test (8 CPUs), and there
>> is never any noticeable difference in execution times for the work:
>>
>> Example 1: kernel 4.5-rc5 with the rjw 3 patch set version 10
>> "Replace timers with utilization update callbacks":
>> Aggregate times in each idle state:
>
> You need to say what workload that is too.
Sorry, it had been on other e-mails, anyway I do this
(compile the kernel, a few times):
#!/bin/dash
# compile_9 Smythies 2016.03.02
# Add some idle stats.
#
# compile_9 Smythies 2016.02.28
# Do 9 incremental compiles.
# Just trying to be consistent between kernels.
#
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/*/time > ~/temp-doug/begin.txt
LOOPS=0
while [ $LOOPS -lt 9 ];
do
time make -j9 olddefconfig bindeb-pkg LOCALVERSION=-test
sleep 1
LOOPS=$((LOOPS+1))
done
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/*/time > ~/temp-doug/end.txt
_________________________
No files have been touched since a previous compile.
The first compile takes about 8 or 9 minutes, and the rest
take about 2 minutes and 45 seconds, due to caching.
Total about 30 or 31 minutes.
Note that a clean compile takes about 20 minutes, but
that is not what I am doing.
Meanwhile, the following command is being run on
another SSH session (for 33 minutes and 20 seconds):
sudo turbostat -S -J --debug sleep 2000
>> rjwv10 (minutes) reverted (minutes) Idle State
>> 27.0654211 2.617325533 0
>> 12.92451315 24.53266672 1
>> 3.668558467 3.780482633 2
>> 1.2727832 1.61352195 3
>> 130.8342596 141.2234947 4
>>
>> 175.7655355 173.7674915 total
>>
>> Example 2: kernel 4.5-rc7 stock:
>> Aggregate times in each idle state:
>>
>> k45rc7 (minutes) reverted (minutes) Idle State
>> 20.1771917 2.638311483 0
>> 13.02770225 21.81474838 1
>> 3.428136783 3.951405 2
>> 1.4540243 1.552488167 3
>> 134.9057413 143.5533 4
>>
>> 172.9927963 173.5102531 total
>>
>> Energy (restated from a previous e-mail):
>>
>> Test 7: reverted: Package Joules: 47830
>> Test 8: rjwv10: Package Joules: 54419 (revert saves 12.1% energy)
>>
>> Test 9: reverted: Package Joules: 49326
>> Test 10: rjwv10: Package Joules: 55442 (revert saves 11% energy)
>>
>> Test 11: reverted: acpi-cpufreq ondemand: Package Joules: 49146
>> Test 12: rjwv10: acpi-cpufreq ondemand: Package Joules: 56302 (revert saves 12.7% energy)
>>
>> Energy (not in any previous e-mail):
>>
>> Reverted: 56178 Joules
>> Kernel 4.5-rc7: 63269 Joules (revert saves 12.6% energy)
> So the claim in commit a9ceb78bc75ca47972096372ff3d48648b16317a is
> that the change should not really affect systems with low C1
> latencies.
>
> I wonder what's the C1 latency on your test system?
>From that script from a Rik van Riel e-mail:
state 0 latency: 0
state 1 latency: 2
state 2 latency: 10
state 3 latency: 80
state 4 latency: 104
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-01 17:51 SKL BOOT FAILURE unless idle=nomwait (was Re: PROBLEM: Cpufreq constantly keeps frequency at maximum on 4.5-rc4) Len Brown
[not found] ` <87si087tsr.fsf@iki.fi>
2016-03-02 17:10 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-08 21:13 ` Len Brown
2016-03-08 21:19 ` Len Brown
2016-03-09 17:01 ` Arto Jantunen
2016-03-09 23:03 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-09 23:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-09 23:45 ` Doug Smythies [this message]
2016-03-09 23:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-11 14:03 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-11 18:22 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-11 20:30 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-11 23:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-12 0:46 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-12 1:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-12 2:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-13 7:46 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-14 1:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-14 6:39 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-14 12:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-14 14:31 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-14 15:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-14 17:45 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-14 22:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-15 2:03 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 0:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 0:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 0:55 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 1:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 13:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 14:01 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 14:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 14:46 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 15:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 15:07 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 15:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 16:14 ` [PATCH] cpuidle: use high confidence factors only when considering polling Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 0:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 6:32 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-18 13:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 18:32 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-18 19:29 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 20:59 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-18 21:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 21:26 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 23:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 21:35 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 21:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 21:52 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 22:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 22:28 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 23:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 21:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 22:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 22:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-19 1:53 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-19 2:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-19 2:17 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-19 2:33 ` 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='003701d17a5d$cab287a0$601796e0$@net' \
--to=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=viiru@iki.fi \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/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.