From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@tu-dresden.de>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 4/7] cpuidle: menu: Split idle duration prediction from state selection
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 10:15:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43825f88-762e-11e5-d70a-45152b95599d@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180305135322.GV25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 2018/3/5 21:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:05:10PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:47:23PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>>>> IOW, the target residency of the selected state doesn't tell you how
>>>> much time you should expect to be idle in general.
>>>
>>> Right, but I think that measure isn't of primary relevance. What we want
>>> to know is: 'should I stop the tick' and 'what C state do I go to'.
I understood the benefit of mapping duration to state number, is duration <->
state number mapping a generic solution to all arches?
Back to the user's concern is, "I'm running a latency sensitive application, and
I want idle switching ASAP". So I think the user may not care about what C state
to go into, that is, even if a deeper state has chance to go, the user striving
for a higher workload score may still not want it?
>>>
>>> In order to answer those questions we need durations as input, but I
>>> don't think we should preserve durations throughout. The scheme from the
>>> above link reduces to N states in order to deal with arbitrary
>>> distributions, only the actual states -- ie boundaries where our answers
>>> changes -- are relevant, anything inside those boundaries would lead to
>>> the exact same answer anyway.
>>
>> I generally agree here, but I'm not convinced about flagging the
>> states, splitting them and so on.
>
> I think linking them like that makes sense, but I can see room for
> discussion...
>
>> Maybe just return a "nohz" indicator from cpuidle_select() in addition
>> to the state index and make the decision in the governor?
>
> Much better option than returning a duration :-)
>
So what does "nohz = disable and state index = deepest" mean? This combination
does not make sense for performance only purpose?
Thanks,
-Aubrey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-06 2:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-04 22:21 [RFC/RFT][PATCH 0/7] sched/cpuidle: Idle loop rework Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-04 22:24 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH 1/7] time: tick-sched: Reorganize idle tick management code Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-05 10:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-05 11:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-04 22:24 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/7] sched: idle: Do not stop the tick upfront in the idle loop Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-04 22:24 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH 3/7] sched: idle: Do not stop the tick before cpuidle_idle_call() Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-04 22:26 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH 4/7] cpuidle: menu: Split idle duration prediction from state selection Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-05 11:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-05 11:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-05 12:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-05 13:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-05 13:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-06 2:15 ` Li, Aubrey [this message]
2018-03-06 8:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-06 14:07 ` Li, Aubrey
2018-03-04 22:27 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH 5/7] cpuidle: New governor callback for predicting idle duration Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-04 22:28 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH 6/7] sched: idle: Predict idle duration before stopping the tick Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-05 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-05 11:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-05 12:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-05 12:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-05 13:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-05 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-05 12:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-05 13:19 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-05 13:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-05 13:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-05 15:36 ` Thomas Ilsche
2018-03-05 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-05 23:27 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-06 8:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-04 22:29 ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH 7/7] time: tick-sched: Avoid running the same code twice in a row Rafael J. Wysocki
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=43825f88-762e-11e5-d70a-45152b95599d@linux.intel.com \
--to=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgalbraith@suse.de \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.ilsche@tu-dresden.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