From: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Cc: "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" <cpufreq@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: cpufreq on demand governor sampling rate restricted to HZ even on NO_HZ kernels
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:28:16 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1233336496.13694.49.camel@jamoon.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200901301559.15170.trenn@suse.de>
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 06:59 -0800, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> depending on HZ set to:
>
> 100
> 250
> 1000
>
> the ondemand governor is currently limited to poll the CPU load
> and adjust the frequency (sampling rate sysfs variable) every:
>
> 200ms
> 80ms
> 20ms
>
> This limitation does not consider NO_HZ which looks wrong?
> If this is correct, can someone give me a pointer, I'd like
> to understand why.
>
That is wrong. ondemand sampling_rate should not limit the sampling rate
based on HZ when NO_HZ is configured. The idle statistics is not limited
by HZ rate with NO_HZ, as we will have idle microaccounting.
> If NO_HZ can/should go down to 20ms polling and more (current
> CPUs are able to switch fast enough, so that the ondemand governor
> would calculate the default polling interval below 80ms for them),
> this would hurt in respect of C-states at some point.
>
> For performance reasons, one wants to poll as much as possible, for
> powersaving reasons (C-states), one wants to poll as seldom as
> possible.
>
> I wonder whether it makes sense to dynamically adjust the polling
> interval (e.g. by a hint (and initial wakeup) from the scheduler or
> taking C-states into account) to:
> - increase the sampling rate, e.g. based on context switching
> activity
> - lower sampling rate when the system is idle (to gain
> full C-state efficiency)
> Or in what other way deep C-states could be taken into account
> in respect of ondemand polling?
>
ondemand polling uses deferrable timer and hence will not be called
frequently on a totally idle CPU. The main reason we did not do the
dynamic sampling_rate is because it increases the ondemand response time
with a sudden increase of load, which is not liked by most workloads.
Thanks,
Venki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-30 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-30 14:59 cpufreq on demand governor sampling rate restricted to HZ even on NO_HZ kernels Thomas Renninger
2009-01-30 17:28 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh [this message]
2009-02-03 17:04 ` Thomas Renninger
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=1233336496.13694.49.camel@jamoon.sc.intel.com \
--to=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trenn@suse.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