public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: menu: use nr_running instead of cpuload for calculating perf mult
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:31:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1338841878.28282.133.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FCCEF94.6010805@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 10:25 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> for the sake of argument, lets call it the amount of work the system can
> get done. (where 'work' is obviously still vague, but the software
> running on the system will know what it is).

Screw the software, explain it to me.

> can you afford to do no work for those 20 msec every second ?
> the answer to that will be "it depends", and estimating that "depends"
> is what the load average value is used for. 

See this just doesn't make any sense..

If there's work, we're not idle. If there's more work we're idle less.
We're just not going to be idle 20 msec every second if there's more to
do.

And like I said many times now, if you inflate some of the idle periods,
the work shifts (it doesn't become less) and a next idle period will be
smaller -- since we'll only become idle again once all work is done.

( and since its smaller you decrease your idle guestimate, and lower you
C state level )

The absolute only thing any of this makes any difference to is
synchronous stuff, like round-trip latencies. If you have a workload
that doesn't do anything until something else happens and so on. Then,
if you delay each signal a bit the total time will increase and the
amount of stuff done in a given time decreases.

However, if you stuff enough work down that pipe, the total throughput
should still be good -- esp. if you can saturate the thing and all idle
time goes away.

You said that accrued latency per time unit was an approximate measure,
but afaict that's related to what you want, whereas the unix
load-average is completely unrelated to any of this.

Anyway, as it stands you're better off ripping the entire thing out,
since I don't see how it could have worked, given that you're using an
entirely random measure of something.

Also, I'm still not understanding why decreasing your idle-period
guestimation when you're woken up early isn't catching any of this.

  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-04 20:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-04 10:24 [PATCH] cpuidle: menu: use nr_running instead of cpuload for calculating perf mult Vladimir Davydov
2012-06-04 10:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-04 10:50   ` Vladimir Davydov
2012-06-04 13:13   ` Arjan van de Ven
2012-06-04 13:45     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-04 13:48       ` Arjan van de Ven
2012-06-04 15:08         ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-04 15:14           ` Arjan van de Ven
2012-06-04 15:26             ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-04 15:39               ` Arjan van de Ven
2012-06-04 16:33                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-04 16:53                   ` Arjan van de Ven
2012-06-04 17:08                     ` Vladimir Davydov
2012-06-04 17:17                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-04 17:16                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-04 17:25                       ` Arjan van de Ven
2012-06-04 20:31                         ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2012-06-04 20:45                           ` Arjan van de Ven
2012-06-04 21:14                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-04 20:40                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-05  3:48                 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-06-04 13:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2012-06-04 13:19   ` Vladimir Davydov
2012-11-27 19:02 ` Vladimir Davydov

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=1338841878.28282.133.camel@twins \
    --to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=vdavydov@parallels.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