From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Doug Smythies" Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle() Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:11:33 -0700 Message-ID: <003f01d3c211$9a094e10$ce1bea30$@net> References: <4137867.C4jYrWdt8n@aspire.rjw.lan> <20180314120450.GT4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> z38ge3YFh1Konz38iel45g Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: z38ge3YFh1Konz38iel45g Content-Language: en-ca Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: 'Rik van Riel' Cc: 'Linux PM' , 'Frederic Weisbecker' , 'Thomas Gleixner' , 'Paul McKenney' , 'Thomas Ilsche' , 'Aubrey Li' , 'Mike Galbraith' , 'LKML' , 'Peter Zijlstra' , "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" , Doug Smythies List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 2018.03.22 09:32 Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 13:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On x86 we don't have to use that time_check_counter thing, >> sched_clock() >> is really cheap, not sure if it makes sense on other platforms. > > Are you sure? I saw a 5-10% increase in CPU use, > for a constant query rate to a memcache style > workload, with v3 of this patch. I would very much like to be able to repeat your test results. However, I am not sure what you mean by "memcache style workload". Is there a test you can point me to? Say a Phoronix type test, for example. All of my tests with the V3 of this patch have been fine. ... Doug