From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Li, Aubrey" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/8] cpuidle: make fast idle threshold tunable Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:12:32 +0800 Message-ID: <4242dd51-e2ae-874a-9246-2d80a134067a@linux.intel.com> References: <1506756034-6340-1-git-send-email-aubrey.li@intel.com> <2242303.t20yq9Lc6j@aspire.rjw.lan> <6153229.9lQq4PJGJ7@aspire.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6153229.9lQq4PJGJ7@aspire.rjw.lan> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Aubrey Li , tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, len.brown@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 2017/10/17 8:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:00:45 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote: >> On 2017/10/14 8:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:32 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote: >>>> Add a knob to make fast idle threshold tunable >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li >>> >>> I first of all am not sure about the need to add a tunable for this at all >>> in the first place. >> >> Actually I think a fixed value(10) might be good enough but not quite sure >> if there is a requirement to tune it for different scenario, for example even >> if the predicted idle interval is 100x overhead, I still want a fast path for >> a better benchmark score? > > Any new tunables make the test matrix expand considerably, so it generally is > better to err on the conservative side with adding them. > Okay, it's fine for me without it. I'll remove in the next version. Thanks, -Aubrey