From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EC603D81; Wed, 9 Apr 2025 06:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744181538; cv=none; b=sPIOBrCLIQ/tnoKVjveZNwR8Dq9nTz3yoE535NYDw3OY0vtoK8x9Eo+2m5vratLp64oS44sbWkFYsN3zche74TWNyd20VXcL24M73llv6+NvbPGjBp5wQ9yERdR6MN5D385W84TzMux3mLe9A+6lze+YQXAKAb8seuBAxMZdxkM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744181538; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kWYezyYs1zuswcTDPHq/cb/rTH297BcrKTnJpgUhmcw=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=j4xM8k7spHQdRC5O1ygino9FmBqQs7QQm/yO2o7xllQFDGjssMk22emL6d5aKnW5n33iBbmt52kDlMmoBobXsId6zDCm9uCQwL5Q3lMiG+soM1gOOxHf9SiKVJZNeoEBg3cLkouqSdvS/5ipAjnPtiDtmvXpalxsnCkbvYAW+nI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Yc+e34az; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Yc+e34az" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1744181537; x=1775717537; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to: references:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kWYezyYs1zuswcTDPHq/cb/rTH297BcrKTnJpgUhmcw=; b=Yc+e34azWhCtGe9WxdfeXDAzL4W90UWwKIR+ekwPUGN1yf9yWSMhoEtV mWWWiqj0gMcK2IqVjNJZzJhT18HtdJekZznl2h5kuYUOREbPv3Dwqj9rY WYtQ/tq549pJbRFtyV/vei8FmEaVwzO1W8ygc1uKX1oezjCZiFvqpkgiG w3dJeOhkAdXX9yCGvyyI8Tb6+Cf1lXcR8u2YPNC00slQ+/ZF3sRb9y1i/ mF2xd40FljQ3sCNOSOAAjyYiPjPthhh1VUcYXTqdrOU7ZNmWoR8elUUps W4AxtwQQ5JY1024oaVROHXQTpg2iABcUTYVmGkoXo+8amRtTZ8D2gk09W A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 9Bx0AWApQXOt4jVovhWQMQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: LLTem6PjTUKISLDp2SX/Aw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11397"; a="45771591" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,200,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="45771591" Received: from fmviesa010.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.150]) by orvoesa110.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2025 23:52:16 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 7pIIqn+7T9m/+NxggTxebg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: sjRp9DNDS5qFuztZ37c6lA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,200,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="129005862" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by fmviesa010.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2025 23:52:16 -0700 Received: from abityuts-desk1.ger.corp.intel.com (abityuts-desk1.fi.intel.com [10.237.68.150]) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090EE20B5736; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 23:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3892c0eb983900c184c6d06ffe8364e2da23ae2a.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] cpuidle: teo: Refine handling of short idle intervals From: Artem Bityutskiy To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM Cc: LKML , Daniel Lezcano , Christian Loehle , Doug Smythies , Aboorva Devarajan Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 09:52:12 +0300 In-Reply-To: <4661520.LvFx2qVVIh@rjwysocki.net> References: <4661520.LvFx2qVVIh@rjwysocki.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.4 (3.52.4-2.fc40) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Thu, 2025-04-03 at 21:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi Everyone, >=20 > This series is intended to address an issue with overly aggressive select= ion > of idle state 0 (the polling state) in teo on x86 in some cases when time= r > wakeups dominate the CPU wakeup pattern. Hi Rafael, I ran SPECjbb2015 with and without these 2 patches on Granite Ra= pids Xeon (GNR). Expectation: no measurable difference, because there is almost no POLL in c= ase of SPECjbb2015 on GNR. Result: no measurable difference. Conclusion: these 2 patches do not introduce a regression as measured by SPECjbb2015 on GNR. "No regression" is also a useful piece of information, so reporting. Thanks, Artem.