From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: '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>,
'Rik van Riel' <riel@surriel.com>,
'Aubrey Li' <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
'Mike Galbraith' <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
'Linux PM' <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:00:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000f01d3bba5$3cba5a00$b62f0e00$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: w74pegSSBpApsw74ueHlNx
On 2018.03.14 07:09 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
... [snip]...
> v2 -> v3: Use local_clock() for time measurements and drop the
> counter, since that should be lightweight enough (as
> suggested by Peter).
I have been testing the latest of everything for a couple of days
now, and everything continues to be great.
Note that I was using a POLL_IDLE_TIME_CHECK_COUNT of 1 anyhow, because
I specifically wanted to test the worst case time through the loop.
i.e. I wanted any potential issue to be 1000 times more likely to find.
My problem is that I don't know of a good test for this specifically.
I'll switch to this V3, along with V4 of the "sched/cpuidle: Idle loop
rework" 7 patch set.
As for energy savings for just this patch only, I would refer readers
to my previous test results from late November, [1], as I haven't
re-done those Phoronix tests yet, but I don't expect the results to
differ much.
[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=151154499710125&w=2
... Doug
next reply other threads:[~2018-03-14 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-14 15:00 Doug Smythies [this message]
2018-03-20 10:52 ` [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle() Rafael J. Wysocki
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
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
2018-03-14 14:08 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
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
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='000f01d3bba5$3cba5a00$b62f0e00$@net' \
--to=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--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=riel@surriel.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).