From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, hpa@zytor.com,
oleg@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, vschneid@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: idle: Introduce CPU-specific idle=poll
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 12:23:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250623102334.GP1613200@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250621235745.3994-1-atomlin@atomlin.com>
On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 07:57:45PM -0400, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> Currently, the idle=poll kernel boot parameter applies globally, forcing
> all CPUs into a shallow polling idle state to ensure ultra-low latency
> responsiveness. While this is beneficial for extremely latency-sensitive
> workloads, this global application lacks flexibility and can lead to
> significant power inefficiency. This is particularly evident in systems
> with a high CPU count, such as those utilising the
> Full Dynticks/Adaptive Tick feature (i.e., nohz_full). In such
> environments, only a subset of CPUs might genuinely require
> sub-microsecond responsiveness, while others, though active, could
> benefit from entering deeper idle states to conserve power.
Can't we already do this at runtime with pmqos? If you set your latency
demand very low, it should end up picking the poll state, no? And you
can do this per-cpu.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-23 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-21 23:57 [RFC PATCH] sched: idle: Introduce CPU-specific idle=poll Aaron Tomlin
2025-06-23 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-06-23 21:49 ` Mel Gorman
2025-06-25 13:39 ` Aaron Tomlin
2025-08-31 22:29 ` Aaron Tomlin
2025-09-07 23:18 ` [RFC] sched: idle: Proposal to remove idle=poll Aaron Tomlin
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=20250623102334.GP1613200@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=atomlin@atomlin.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.