From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756890AbdJQGMk (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:12:40 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:30869 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756192AbdJQGMi (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:12:38 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,389,1503385200"; d="scan'208";a="163450629" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/8] cpuidle: make fast idle threshold tunable To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Aubrey Li , tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, len.brown@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1506756034-6340-1-git-send-email-aubrey.li@intel.com> <2242303.t20yq9Lc6j@aspire.rjw.lan> <6153229.9lQq4PJGJ7@aspire.rjw.lan> From: "Li, Aubrey" Message-ID: <4242dd51-e2ae-874a-9246-2d80a134067a@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:12:32 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6153229.9lQq4PJGJ7@aspire.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2017/10/17 8:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:00:45 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote: >> On 2017/10/14 8:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:32 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote: >>>> Add a knob to make fast idle threshold tunable >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li >>> >>> I first of all am not sure about the need to add a tunable for this at all >>> in the first place. >> >> Actually I think a fixed value(10) might be good enough but not quite sure >> if there is a requirement to tune it for different scenario, for example even >> if the predicted idle interval is 100x overhead, I still want a fast path for >> a better benchmark score? > > Any new tunables make the test matrix expand considerably, so it generally is > better to err on the conservative side with adding them. > Okay, it's fine for me without it. I'll remove in the next version. Thanks, -Aubrey