From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: 'Rik van Riel' <riel@redhat.com>,
"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
'Viresh Kumar' <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
'Srinivas Pandruvada' <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
"'Chen, Yu C'" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, 'Arto Jantunen' <viiru@iki.fi>,
'Len Brown' <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: RE: SKL BOOT FAILURE unless idle=nomwait (was Re: PROBLEM: Cpufreq constantly keeps frequency at maximum on 4.5-rc4)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:45:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <003701d17a5d$cab287a0$601796e0$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0i0cx_xYUwFWDX5nE+rNgbX4TY0ATYuD3rEi86Ky5cA5A@mail.gmail.com>
On 2016.03.09 15:18 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
>> Does the direction that this thread has taken mean that those two
>> commits that Arto identified might now not be reverted?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Commits:
>> 9c4b2867ed7c8c8784dd417ffd16e705e81eb145
>> a9ceb78bc75ca47972096372ff3d48648b16317a
>>
>> Recall that increased energy consumption was also isolated to those
>> two commits for some types of workflow. The suggestion is that the
>> commits should be reverted anyhow.
>>
>> What seems to be happening is that CPUs are deciding to stay in idle
>> state 0 a lot more, when they actually could / should be in a deeper
>> idle state.
>>
>> Test time is always: 33 minutes and 20 seconds test (8 CPUs), and there
>> is never any noticeable difference in execution times for the work:
>>
>> Example 1: kernel 4.5-rc5 with the rjw 3 patch set version 10
>> "Replace timers with utilization update callbacks":
>> Aggregate times in each idle state:
>
> You need to say what workload that is too.
Sorry, it had been on other e-mails, anyway I do this
(compile the kernel, a few times):
#!/bin/dash
# compile_9 Smythies 2016.03.02
# Add some idle stats.
#
# compile_9 Smythies 2016.02.28
# Do 9 incremental compiles.
# Just trying to be consistent between kernels.
#
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/*/time > ~/temp-doug/begin.txt
LOOPS=0
while [ $LOOPS -lt 9 ];
do
time make -j9 olddefconfig bindeb-pkg LOCALVERSION=-test
sleep 1
LOOPS=$((LOOPS+1))
done
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/*/time > ~/temp-doug/end.txt
_________________________
No files have been touched since a previous compile.
The first compile takes about 8 or 9 minutes, and the rest
take about 2 minutes and 45 seconds, due to caching.
Total about 30 or 31 minutes.
Note that a clean compile takes about 20 minutes, but
that is not what I am doing.
Meanwhile, the following command is being run on
another SSH session (for 33 minutes and 20 seconds):
sudo turbostat -S -J --debug sleep 2000
>> rjwv10 (minutes) reverted (minutes) Idle State
>> 27.0654211 2.617325533 0
>> 12.92451315 24.53266672 1
>> 3.668558467 3.780482633 2
>> 1.2727832 1.61352195 3
>> 130.8342596 141.2234947 4
>>
>> 175.7655355 173.7674915 total
>>
>> Example 2: kernel 4.5-rc7 stock:
>> Aggregate times in each idle state:
>>
>> k45rc7 (minutes) reverted (minutes) Idle State
>> 20.1771917 2.638311483 0
>> 13.02770225 21.81474838 1
>> 3.428136783 3.951405 2
>> 1.4540243 1.552488167 3
>> 134.9057413 143.5533 4
>>
>> 172.9927963 173.5102531 total
>>
>> Energy (restated from a previous e-mail):
>>
>> Test 7: reverted: Package Joules: 47830
>> Test 8: rjwv10: Package Joules: 54419 (revert saves 12.1% energy)
>>
>> Test 9: reverted: Package Joules: 49326
>> Test 10: rjwv10: Package Joules: 55442 (revert saves 11% energy)
>>
>> Test 11: reverted: acpi-cpufreq ondemand: Package Joules: 49146
>> Test 12: rjwv10: acpi-cpufreq ondemand: Package Joules: 56302 (revert saves 12.7% energy)
>>
>> Energy (not in any previous e-mail):
>>
>> Reverted: 56178 Joules
>> Kernel 4.5-rc7: 63269 Joules (revert saves 12.6% energy)
> So the claim in commit a9ceb78bc75ca47972096372ff3d48648b16317a is
> that the change should not really affect systems with low C1
> latencies.
>
> I wonder what's the C1 latency on your test system?
>From that script from a Rik van Riel e-mail:
state 0 latency: 0
state 1 latency: 2
state 2 latency: 10
state 3 latency: 80
state 4 latency: 104
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-01 17:51 SKL BOOT FAILURE unless idle=nomwait (was Re: PROBLEM: Cpufreq constantly keeps frequency at maximum on 4.5-rc4) Len Brown
[not found] ` <87si087tsr.fsf@iki.fi>
2016-03-02 17:10 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-08 21:13 ` Len Brown
2016-03-08 21:19 ` Len Brown
2016-03-09 17:01 ` Arto Jantunen
2016-03-09 23:03 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-09 23:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-09 23:45 ` Doug Smythies [this message]
2016-03-09 23:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-11 14:03 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-11 18:22 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-11 20:30 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-11 23:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-12 0:46 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-12 1:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-12 2:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-13 7:46 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-14 1:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-14 6:39 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-14 12:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-14 14:31 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-14 15:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-14 17:45 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-14 22:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-15 2:03 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 0:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 0:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 0:55 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 1:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 13:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 14:01 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 14:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 14:46 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 15:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 15:07 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-16 15:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-16 16:14 ` [PATCH] cpuidle: use high confidence factors only when considering polling Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 0:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 6:32 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-18 13:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 18:32 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-18 19:29 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 20:59 ` Doug Smythies
2016-03-18 21:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 21:26 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 23:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 21:35 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 21:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 21:52 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 22:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 22:28 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-18 23:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 21:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 22:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-18 22:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-19 1:53 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-19 2:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-19 2:17 ` Rik van Riel
2016-03-19 2:33 ` 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='003701d17a5d$cab287a0$601796e0$@net' \
--to=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=viiru@iki.fi \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/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).