From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [Results] [RFC PATCH v4 00/40] mm: Memory Power Management Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:50:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20130926015016.GM18242@two.firstfloor.org> References: <20130925231250.26184.31438.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <52437128.7030402@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130925164057.6bbaf23bdc5057c42b2ab010@linux-foundation.org> <20130925234734.GK18242@two.firstfloor.org> <52438AA9.3020809@linux.intel.com> <20130925182129.a7db6a0fd2c7cc3b43fda92d@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130925182129.a7db6a0fd2c7cc3b43fda92d@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Andi Kleen , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , mgorman@suse.de, dave@sr71.net, hannes@cmpxchg.org, tony.luck@intel.com, matthew.garrett@nebula.com, riel@redhat.com, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, willy@linux.intel.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, lenb@kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl, gargankita@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, santosh.shilimkar@ti.com, kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 06:21:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:15:21 -0700 Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On 9/25/2013 4:47 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > >> Also, the changelogs don't appear to discuss one obvious downside: the > > >> latency incurred in bringing a bank out of one of the low-power states > > >> and back into full operation. Please do discuss and quantify that to > > >> the best of your knowledge. > > > > > > On Sandy Bridge the memry wakeup overhead is really small. It's on by default > > > in most setups today. > > > > btw note that those kind of memory power savings are content-preserving, > > so likely a whole chunk of these patches is not actually needed on SNB > > (or anything else Intel sells or sold) > > (head spinning a bit). Could you please expand on this rather a lot? As far as I understand there is a range of aggressiveness. You could just group memory a bit better (assuming you can sufficiently predict the future or have some interface to let someone tell you about it). Or you can actually move memory around later to get as low footprint as possible. This patchkit seems to do both, with the later parts being on the aggressive side (move things around) If you had non content preserving memory saving you would need to be aggressive as you couldn't afford any mistakes. If you had very slow wakeup you also couldn't afford mistakes, as those could cost a lot of time. On SandyBridge is not slow and it's preserving, so some mistakes are ok. But being aggressive (so move things around) may still help you saving more power -- i guess only benchmarks can tell. It's a trade off between potential gain and potential worse case performance regression. It may also depend on the workload. At least right now the numbers seem to be positive. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755263Ab3IZBuT (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:50:19 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([193.170.194.197]:48615 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751188Ab3IZBuS (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:50:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:50:16 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Andrew Morton Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Andi Kleen , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , mgorman@suse.de, dave@sr71.net, hannes@cmpxchg.org, tony.luck@intel.com, matthew.garrett@nebula.com, riel@redhat.com, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, willy@linux.intel.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, lenb@kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl, gargankita@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, santosh.shilimkar@ti.com, kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Results] [RFC PATCH v4 00/40] mm: Memory Power Management Message-ID: <20130926015016.GM18242@two.firstfloor.org> References: <20130925231250.26184.31438.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <52437128.7030402@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130925164057.6bbaf23bdc5057c42b2ab010@linux-foundation.org> <20130925234734.GK18242@two.firstfloor.org> <52438AA9.3020809@linux.intel.com> <20130925182129.a7db6a0fd2c7cc3b43fda92d@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130925182129.a7db6a0fd2c7cc3b43fda92d@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 06:21:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:15:21 -0700 Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On 9/25/2013 4:47 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > >> Also, the changelogs don't appear to discuss one obvious downside: the > > >> latency incurred in bringing a bank out of one of the low-power states > > >> and back into full operation. Please do discuss and quantify that to > > >> the best of your knowledge. > > > > > > On Sandy Bridge the memry wakeup overhead is really small. It's on by default > > > in most setups today. > > > > btw note that those kind of memory power savings are content-preserving, > > so likely a whole chunk of these patches is not actually needed on SNB > > (or anything else Intel sells or sold) > > (head spinning a bit). Could you please expand on this rather a lot? As far as I understand there is a range of aggressiveness. You could just group memory a bit better (assuming you can sufficiently predict the future or have some interface to let someone tell you about it). Or you can actually move memory around later to get as low footprint as possible. This patchkit seems to do both, with the later parts being on the aggressive side (move things around) If you had non content preserving memory saving you would need to be aggressive as you couldn't afford any mistakes. If you had very slow wakeup you also couldn't afford mistakes, as those could cost a lot of time. On SandyBridge is not slow and it's preserving, so some mistakes are ok. But being aggressive (so move things around) may still help you saving more power -- i guess only benchmarks can tell. It's a trade off between potential gain and potential worse case performance regression. It may also depend on the workload. At least right now the numbers seem to be positive. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.