From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Doug Smythies" Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle() Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:00:44 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01d3bba5$3cba5a00$b62f0e00$@net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: References: w74pegSSBpApsw74ueHlNx In-Reply-To: w74pegSSBpApsw74ueHlNx Content-Language: en-ca Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" Cc: 'Peter Zijlstra' , 'Frederic Weisbecker' , 'Thomas Gleixner' , 'Paul McKenney' , 'Thomas Ilsche' , 'Rik van Riel' , 'Aubrey Li' , 'Mike Galbraith' , 'LKML' , Doug Smythies , 'Linux PM' List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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