From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: 'Rik van Riel' <riel@surriel.com>,
"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: 'Linux PM' <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
'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>,
'Aubrey Li' <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
'Mike Galbraith' <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 22:59:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <003401d3c4c7$ab9f82d0$02de8870$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 0DSBfDrt1Ffdw0DSCfOhiN
On 2018.03.25 14:25 Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 23:34 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 10:15:52 PM CEST Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>
>>> --=-e8yLbs0aoH4SrxOskwwl
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 18:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/sched/idle.h>
>>>> =20
>>>> #define POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT (TICK_NSEC / 16)
>>>> +#define POLL_IDLE_COUNT 1000
>>>> =20
>>>> static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>>> struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int
>>>> index)
>>>> @@ -18,9 +19,14 @@ static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cp
>>>>
>>>> local_irq_enable();
>>>> if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
>>>> + unsigned int loop_count =3D 0;
>>>> +
>>>> while (!need_resched()) {
>>>> cpu_relax();
>>>> + if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_COUNT)
>>>> + continue;
>>>>
>>>> + loop_count =3D 0;
>>>> if (local_clock() - time_start >
>>>> POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT)
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> OK, I am still seeing a performance
>>> degradation with the above, though
>>> not throughout the entire workload.
>>>
>>> It appears that making the idle loop
>>> do anything besides cpu_relax() for
>>> a significant amount of time slows
>>> things down.
>>
>> I see.
>>
I have no proof, but I do not see that as
the problem.
I think the issue is the overall exiting
and then re-entering idle state 0 much
more often, and the related overheads, where
interrupts are disabled for short periods.
My jury rigged way of trying to create similar
conditions seems to always have the ISR return with
the need_resched() flag set, so there is no difference
in idle state 0 entries per unit time between kernel
4.16-rc6 and one with the poll fixes added.
i.e. the difference between these numbers over some time:
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/state0/usage
Rik, I wonder if you see a difference with your real
workflow?
... Doug
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-26 5:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-14 14:08 [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle() 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 [this message]
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
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-03-14 15:00 Doug Smythies
2018-03-20 10:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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
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='003401d3c4c7$ab9f82d0$02de8870$@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).