From: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>
To: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
kernel@quicinc.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Prakash Viswalingam <quic_prakashv@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Avoid spurious freezer wakeups
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:17:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZRMEHb3_0Ku1UuK_@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230908-avoid-spurious-freezer-wakeups-v4-0-6155aa3dafae@quicinc.com>
On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 03:49:14PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> After commit f5d39b020809 ("freezer,sched: Rewrite core freezer logic"),
> tasks that transition directly from TASK_FREEZABLE to TASK_FROZEN are
> always woken up on the thaw path. Prior to that commit, tasks could ask
> freezer to consider them "frozen enough" via freezer_do_not_count(). The
> commit replaced freezer_do_not_count() with a TASK_FREEZABLE state which
> allows freezer to immediately mark the task as TASK_FROZEN without
> waking up the task. This is efficient for the suspend path, but on the
> thaw path, the task is always woken up even if the task didn't need to
> wake up and goes back to its TASK_(UN)INTERRUPTIBLE state. Although
> these tasks are capable of handling of the wakeup, we can observe a
> power/perf impact from the extra wakeup.
This issue is hurting the performance of our stable 6.1 releases. Does
it make sense to backport these patches into stable branches once they
land in mainline? I would assume we want to fix the perf regression
there too?
--
Carlos Llamas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-26 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-08 22:49 [PATCH v4 0/2] Avoid spurious freezer wakeups Elliot Berman
2023-09-08 22:49 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/core: Remove ifdeffery for saved_state Elliot Berman
2023-09-08 22:49 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] freezer,sched: Use saved_state to reduce some spurious wakeups Elliot Berman
2023-09-11 15:49 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] Avoid spurious freezer wakeups Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-26 16:17 ` Carlos Llamas [this message]
2023-09-26 20:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-26 20:56 ` Carlos Llamas
2023-09-26 22:04 ` Elliot Berman
2023-09-28 16:24 ` Elliot Berman
2023-10-03 13:01 ` Ingo Molnar
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=ZRMEHb3_0Ku1UuK_@google.com \
--to=cmllamas@google.com \
--cc=kernel@quicinc.com \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quic_eberman@quicinc.com \
--cc=quic_prakashv@quicinc.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.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).