public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] timekeeping: Improved NOHZ frequency steering (v2)
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 12:14:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140519101439.GE4060@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1400288204-414-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org>

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:56:41PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> This version of the patch set corrects a few issues Miroslav pointed
> out, as well as adapts his approach almost completely for the last
> patch. This pulls the results in to be very close to his original
> patch.

Ok, so it seems to be almost identical to my patch now. The only two
differences seem to be the removal of the ntp_error correction to
change the effective clock frequency at the current time instead of
aligning it to the start of the tick and the flag to handle the xtime
underflow.

Can we get them in too?

I think both are necessary to avoid having large steps in ntp_error
which take long time to correct. You can see this in the nohz off
freq100 result from the simulator, for example.

> I'm not 100% sure we need the last patch in this series, as
> it has additional computational cost and testing on real
> hardware has shown NOHZ=y performance matching NOHZ=n with a
> earlier version of just the first patch:
> 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/13/501
> (though admittedly, the patch has changed since Richard's testing,
> so the results are a bit stale).

If I could get a sufficiently low update rate on real HW or a more
accurate reference clock, I think I would be able to show you a
difference. But even if we can't at this time, the removal of the
complex feedback loop, which as you saw is difficult to keep working
well in all cases (and we have tested only a very small number of
them), is probably worth the extra computational cost.

Thanks,

> Below are some of the simulator results comparing this patchset
> to vanilla and Miroslav's original patch.

> Miroslav's original patch:
> --------------------------
> 
> $ ./test1.sh 
> 		freq10          freq100         dev             max
> nohz on		0.00601         0.00028         74.0            279.4
> nohz off	0.05867         0.00204         0.2             0.6

> This patchset:
> --------------
> 
> $ ./test1.sh 
> 		freq10          freq100         dev             max
> nohz on		0.00582         0.00033         74.1            279.9
> nohz off	0.06275         0.06440         0.4             1.4

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-05-19 10:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-17  0:56 [PATCH 0/3] timekeeping: Improved NOHZ frequency steering (v2) John Stultz
2014-05-17  0:56 ` [PATCH 1/3] [RFC] timekeeping: Rework frequency adjustments to work better w/ nohz John Stultz
2014-05-17  0:56 ` [PATCH 2/3] [RFC] timekeeping: Use cached ntp_tick_length when accumulating error John Stultz
2014-05-17  0:56 ` [PATCH 3/3] [RFC] timekeeping: Calculate freq adjustment directly John Stultz
2014-05-19 10:14 ` Miroslav Lichvar [this message]
2014-05-19 17:57   ` [PATCH 0/3] timekeeping: Improved NOHZ frequency steering (v2) John Stultz
2014-05-20 10:26     ` Miroslav Lichvar
2014-07-08 11:08     ` Miroslav Lichvar
2014-07-16  4:02       ` John Stultz
2014-07-16  6:59         ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-16 11:57         ` Miroslav Lichvar
2017-05-12 15:14         ` Miroslav Lichvar
2017-05-12 17:26           ` John Stultz
2017-05-17 15:03             ` Miroslav Lichvar

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=20140519101439.GE4060@localhost \
    --to=mlichvar@redhat.com \
    --cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=prarit@redhat.com \
    --cc=richardcochran@gmail.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