From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5309AC43387 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:53:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA212183E for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:53:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telus.net header.i=@telus.net header.b="1Bit5Kvs" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731269AbeLQBxz (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:53:55 -0500 Received: from cmta16.telus.net ([209.171.16.89]:53433 "EHLO cmta16.telus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726276AbeLQBxy (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:53:54 -0500 Received: from dougxps ([173.180.45.4]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id Yi6IghyouPTKIYi6JgbQTW; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 18:53:52 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telus.net; s=neo; t=1545011632; bh=1K/8gVpBMQzGyE/0dbqDoJv3a5/Wq9E2E6iGFt+goDs=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=1Bit5KvsNLyNXr9o9m0HsD5Pyh70NO+4g+JqBIwPFHFXGz01ITq6FuUoHtzKyvbAY 377za90yepAZL8/aUUWkjYe4ThlrjtcShKHEUSPu1ZnBcZCrPqTlPgXKRKCxyw0Lt2 Eo1kjqLj4H5LcZhjDIuzKqCOvgfT0ldtu+tt5+4iF0CAJqkzzV4JABR1Lz028z07fv VqHmaKVlwfUMUk6u51EN42F4wLzf1ziYOWXcoDtEUw5Z3haFzu46P9QqHsLFOEZ+Sg UNXEtfOYBkWCjDLGBEaR1FoUuYE/GSfBNYnK/fWX/8XRUoziZl0CFeuq1emjvdbhd+ inQDPcwQQjh+A== X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=ScEmicZu c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=zJWegnE7BH9C0Gl4FFgQyA==:117 a=zJWegnE7BH9C0Gl4FFgQyA==:17 a=Pyq9K9CWowscuQLKlpiwfMBGOR0=:19 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=FGbulvE0AAAA:8 a=ouC0gsByzFIQeUv6Ql4A:9 a=7Zwj6sZBwVKJAoWSPKxL6X1jA+E=:19 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=svzTaB3SJmTkU8mK-ULk:22 From: "Doug Smythies" To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" , "'Giovanni Gherdovich'" Cc: "'Srinivas Pandruvada'" , "'Peter Zijlstra'" , "'LKML'" , "'Frederic Weisbecker'" , "'Mel Gorman'" , "'Daniel Lezcano'" , "'Chen, Hu'" , "'Quentin Perret'" , "'Linux PM'" , "Doug Smythies" References: WgY3gAchapqCWWgY4gdfDg In-Reply-To: WgY3gAchapqCWWgY4gdfDg Subject: RE: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v8] cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 17:53:41 -0800 Message-ID: <000001d495ab$5c16eea0$1444cbe0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdSRR6W+Msr3sp1wQOOUFEbfomZ2MAEX2lCA Content-Language: en-ca X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfMcMKI2Fm714FODYGyRc4/FimyeKOeItZwo5z/9QfYgASEfPVqCdbmvE1nIMdXjA8VM2LjEEGzbh6MVy/wi9+W0lUqLaRx48odqziRd1fCLakyOxBv6y YLLG4Z8ZvTJr/lEGKPLK10sZYkwS8zhZL7OBxQ/SM9LWkgh+0bBiMOn13rmYsxf+wEk4gYRO1AymjXcgxcWfBhk5T/8e7/Z8srxrziICg/OMmS//w0qUIK08 un1Ufu8Vy32nd6AA8gxFFPsHgEKDMDbR8qc1NWeqX2YfCjEd97ABkIAJgMB12TbiS+EUkZe5y7ZGmxhD5h6FCHDt58rPT+OF0AHYAoUjVAhu0KmrjL7+yNW5 6u8+1HacfTSS2uhwG+3FXpYqArv02FsZhZaWn9IP8DVs4hvuhnV4KTMO1nMUcSBHMhU5Qas0S4pVpr+qwvd4HlzQtiildPToMKXDypFC6t3PzFVP23b5bEST pYLmDg6Onzyvyfi0jee2YHXG/WLvczlrgwSQ69QoLEG6irGz/x3NeE9jz43DxJLCihvDKI0oiC5roZmr Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018.12.11 03:50 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: ...[snip]... > With this version of the TEO governor I'm observing slight, but consistent > performance improvements in some different benchmarks on a few different > systems with respect to menu Same here. > and the corresponding power draw differences > appear to be in the noise. The idle power doesn't seem to change either. Same here. > Also the "above" and "below" metrics (introduced by a separate patch under > discussion) indicate changes in the "good" direction. My graphs now include the "above" and "below" metrics. In particular see Idle State 1 "above" (was too deep) graphs in the links below. However, performance is up and power about the same, so O.K. > Overall, I like this one, so I may consider dropping the RFC/RFT tag from the > next submission. :-) > > v7 -> v8: > * Apply the selection rules to the idle deepest state as well as to > the shallower ones (the deepest idle state was treated differently > before by mistake). > * Subtract 1/2 of the exit latency from the measured idle duration > in teo_update() (instead of subtracting the entire exit latency). > This makes the idle state selection be slightly more performance- > oriented. I cherry picked a couple of the mmtests that Giovanni was doing: Test kernels: "stock" kernel 4.20-rc5 + a couple of rjw patches. Specifically: 2a110ed cpuidle: poll_state: Disregard disable idle states 8f09875 cpuidle: Add 'above' and 'below' idle state metrics d6851a5 Documentation: admin-guide: PM: Add cpuidle document 2595646 Linux 4.20-rc5 "teov6" above + teov6 patch "teov7" above + teov7 patch "teov8" above + teov8 patch 1.) mmtests - netperf-unbound test (UDP): 4.20-rc5 4.20-rc5 4.20-rc5 4.20-rc5 stock teo6 teo7 teo8 Hmean send-64 129.64 ( 0.00%) 132.45 * 2.17%* 130.55 * 0.71%* 132.87 * 2.49%* Hmean send-128 259.53 ( 0.00%) 264.90 * 2.07%* 261.61 * 0.80%* 264.94 * 2.09%* Hmean send-256 515.24 ( 0.00%) 525.41 * 1.97%* 517.41 * 0.42%* 524.88 * 1.87%* Hmean send-1024 2041.01 ( 0.00%) 2079.22 * 1.87%* 2045.03 * 0.20%* 2077.25 * 1.78%* Hmean send-2048 3980.04 ( 0.00%) 4071.09 * 2.29%* 4041.15 * 1.54%* 4057.09 * 1.94%* Hmean send-3312 6321.90 ( 0.00%) 6460.23 * 2.19%* 6395.71 * 1.17%* 6409.09 * 1.38%* Hmean send-4096 7695.18 ( 0.00%) 7882.81 * 2.44%* 7813.72 * 1.54%* 7832.77 * 1.79%* Hmean send-8192 13920.53 ( 0.00%) 14146.47 * 1.62%* 13986.72 * 0.48%* 14079.07 * 1.14%* Hmean send-16384 24714.99 ( 0.00%) 25225.95 * 2.07%* 24896.10 * 0.73%* 25131.52 * 1.69%* Hmean recv-64 129.64 ( 0.00%) 132.45 * 2.17%* 130.55 * 0.71%* 132.87 * 2.49%* Hmean recv-128 259.53 ( 0.00%) 264.90 * 2.07%* 261.61 * 0.80%* 264.94 * 2.09%* Hmean recv-256 515.24 ( 0.00%) 525.41 * 1.97%* 517.41 * 0.42%* 524.88 * 1.87%* Hmean recv-1024 2041.01 ( 0.00%) 2079.22 * 1.87%* 2045.03 * 0.20%* 2077.25 * 1.78%* Hmean recv-2048 3980.04 ( 0.00%) 4071.09 * 2.29%* 4041.15 * 1.54%* 4057.09 * 1.94%* Hmean recv-3312 6321.88 ( 0.00%) 6460.23 * 2.19%* 6395.71 * 1.17%* 6409.09 * 1.38%* Hmean recv-4096 7695.15 ( 0.00%) 7882.81 * 2.44%* 7813.72 * 1.54%* 7832.75 * 1.79%* Hmean recv-8192 13920.52 ( 0.00%) 14146.43 * 1.62%* 13986.72 * 0.48%* 14079.07 * 1.14%* Hmean recv-16384 24714.99 ( 0.00%) 25225.90 * 2.07%* 24896.07 * 0.73%* 25131.49 * 1.69%* Graphs: http://www.smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo8/net-pref-udp-unbound/index.html (note: slow upload speed from my server) 2.) mmtests - sockperf-udp-throughput test: 4.20-rc5 4.20-rc5 4.20-rc5 4.20-rc5 stock teo6 teo7 teo8 Hmean 14 24.57 ( 0.00%) 25.91 * 5.46%* 25.99 * 5.78%* 25.73 * 4.75%* Hmean 100 175.37 ( 0.00%) 185.09 * 5.54%* 185.89 * 6.00%* 184.48 * 5.19%* Hmean 300 523.81 ( 0.00%) 553.47 * 5.66%* 554.70 * 5.90%* 550.16 * 5.03%* Hmean 500 870.08 ( 0.00%) 918.88 * 5.61%* 924.33 * 6.24%* 914.53 * 5.11%* Hmean 850 1449.44 ( 0.00%) 1530.84 * 5.62%* 1535.40 * 5.93%* 1522.53 * 5.04%* Graphs: http://www.smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo8/sockperf-udp-throughput/index.html (note: slow upload speed from my server) The above results tables are also here: http://www.smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo8/index.html I wanted to also do the tbench on loopback test, but have not been able to get it working on my system yet. I'll supply more test results at a later date. ... Doug