From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"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 v2] freezer,sched: Use saved_state to reduce some spurious wakeups
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2023 00:08:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230908220804.GA29218@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4c5b5a0b-6d78-878e-7e66-e08e83e6e1c8@quicinc.com>
On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 01:08:07PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> > Perhaps we should start off by doing the below, instead of making it
> > more complicated instead. I suppose you're right about the overhead, but
> > run a hackbench just to make sure or something.
> >
>
> I ran perf bench sched message -g 40 -l 40 with the v3 patch [1]. After 60
> iterations each, I don't see a significant difference on my arm64 platform:
> both samples ~normal and ~eq variance w/t-test p-value: 0.79.
>
> We also ran typical high level benchmarks for our SoCs (antutu,
> geekbench, et. al) and didn't see any regressions there.
So if you would've made this 2 patches, the first removing the ifdef,
then the changelog for that patch would be a good place to mention it
doesn't measurably regress things.
As a bonus, it then makes your other changes smaller too ;-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-08 22:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-30 17:42 [PATCH v2] freezer,sched: Use saved_state to reduce some spurious wakeups Elliot Berman
2023-09-04 21:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-05 3:59 ` Elliot Berman
2023-09-07 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-08 20:08 ` Elliot Berman
2023-09-08 22:08 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-09-08 22:30 ` Elliot Berman
2023-09-08 22:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-08 23:17 ` Elliot Berman
2023-09-09 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20230908220804.GA29218@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--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=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