All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	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>,
	Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
	Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:15:52 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1522008952.6308.46.camel@surriel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4731938.EeADOapqQb@aspire.rjw.lan>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2160 bytes --]

On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 18:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>  #include <linux/sched/idle.h>
>  
>  #define POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT	(TICK_NSEC / 16)
> +#define POLL_IDLE_COUNT		1000
>  
>  static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>  			       struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int
> index)
> @@ -18,9 +19,14 @@ static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cp
>  
>  	local_irq_enable();
>  	if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
> +		unsigned int loop_count = 0;
> +
>  		while (!need_resched()) {
>  			cpu_relax();
> +			if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_COUNT)
> +				continue;
>  
> +			loop_count = 0;
>  			if (local_clock() - time_start >
> POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT)
>  				break;
>  		}

OK, I am still seeing a performance
degradation with the above, though
not throughout the entire workload.

It appears that making the idle loop
do anything besides cpu_relax() for
a significant amount of time slows
things down.

I plan to try two more things:

1) Disable polling on SMT systems, with
   the idea that putting one thread to
   sleep with monitor/mwait in C1 will
   allow the other thread to run faster.

2) Insert more cpu_relax() calls into the
   main loop, so the CPU core spends more
   of its time in cpu_relax() and less
   time doing other things:

static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
             struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
{
  u64 time_start = local_clock();

  local_irq_enable();
  if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
    unsigned int loop_count = 0;

    while (!need_resched()) {
      cpu_relax();
      cpu_relax();
      cpu_relax();
      cpu_relax();
      cpu_relax();
      cpu_relax();
      cpu_relax();
      cpu_relax();
      if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_COUNT)
        continue;

      loop_count = 0;
      if (local_clock() - time_start > POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT)
        break;
    }
  }
  current_clr_polling();
                                         
  return index;
}

I will let you know how they perform.

-- 
All Rights Reversed.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-03-25 20:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-14 14:08 [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle() 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 [this message]
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
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-03-14 15:00 Doug Smythies
2018-03-20 10:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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

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=1522008952.6308.46.camel@surriel.com \
    --to=riel@surriel.com \
    --cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
    --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=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.