From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: 'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
'Daniel Lezcano' <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
'Linux PM' <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] cpuidle: poll_state: Revise loop termination condition
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 13:50:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <001101d4793f$56535770$02fa0650$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7Sblgyz0iivID7SbmgCnar
On 2018.10.02 14:51 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> If need_resched() returns "false", breaking out of the loop in
> poll_idle() will cause a new idle state to be selected, so in fact
> usually it doesn't make sense to spin in it longer than the target
> residency of the second state. [Note that the "polling" state is
> used only if there is at least one "real" state defined in addition
> to it.] On the other hand, breaking out of it early (say in case
> the next state is disabled) shouldn't hurt as it is polling anyway.
While I agree that it is polling anyway, this change can add significant
burden when debugging and trace is enabled for cpu_idle, if idle state 0
is used often.
For example: Phoronix dbench test, 96 clients: 900 second trace:
Kernel 4.20-rc1:
idle state 0 entry exits: 686,724
Does trace being enabled effect the system under test: Yes.
Kernel 4.20-rc1 with this patch reverted:
idle state 0 entry exits: 66,185
Does trace being enabled effect the system under test: No, or minimal.
... Doug
next reply other threads:[~2018-11-10 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-10 21:50 Doug Smythies [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-10-02 21:50 [PATCH] cpuidle: poll_state: Revise loop termination condition 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='001101d4793f$56535770$02fa0650$@net' \
--to=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/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).