Message-Id: <1248855658.2560.710.camel@ymzhang>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:20:58 +0800
From:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
Cc:	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic configure max_cstate

On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 12:11 +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 05:00:35PM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > I tried different clocksources. For exmaple, I could get a better (30%) result with
> > hpet. With hpet, cpu utilization is about 5~8%. Function hpet_read uses too much cpu
> > time. With tsc, cpu utilization is about 2~3%. I think more cpu utilization causes fewer
> > C state transitions.
> > 
> > With idle=poll, the result is about 10% better than the one of hpet. If using idle=poll,
> > I didn't find result difference among different clocksources.
> 
> IOW, this seems to clearly point to ACPI Cx causing it.
> 
> Both Corrado and me have been thinking that one should try skipping all
> bigger-latency ACPI Cx states whenever there's an ongoing I/O request where an
> immediate reply interrupt is expected.
That's a good idea.

> 
> I've been investigating this a bit, and interesting parts would perhaps include
>   . kernel/pm_qos_params.c
>   . drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c (which acts on the ACPI _cx state
> structs as configured by drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c)
>   . and e.g. the wait_for_completion_timeout() part in drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>     (or other sources in case of other disk I/O mechanisms)
> 
> One way to do some quick (and dirty!!) testing would be to set a flag
> before calling wait_for_completion_timeout() and testing for this flag in
> drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c and then skip deeper Cx states
> conditionally.
> 
> As a very quick test, I tried a
> while :; do :; done
> loop in shell and renicing shell to 19 (to keep my CPU out of ACPI idle),
> but bonnie -s 100 results initially looked promising yet turned out to
> be inconsistent. The real way to test this would be idle=poll.
> My test system was Athlon XP with /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power
> latencies of 000 and 100 (the maximum allowed value, BTW) for C1/C2.
> 
> If the wait_for_completion_timeout() flag testing turns out to help,
> then one might intend to use the pm_qos infrastructure to indicate
> these conditions, however it might be too bloated for such a
> purpose, a relatively simple (read: fast) boolean flag mechanism
> could be better.
> 
> Plus one could then create a helper function which figures out a
> "pretty fast" Cx state (independent of specific latency times!).
> But when introducing this mechanism, take care to not ignore the
> requirements defined by pm_qos settings!
> 
> Oh, and about the places which submit I/O requests where one would have to
> flag this: are they in any way correlated with the scheduler I/O wait
> value? Would the I/O wait mechanism be a place to more easily and centrally
> indicate that we're waiting for a request to come back in "very soon"?
> OTOH I/O requests may have vastly differing delay expectations,
> thus specifically only short-term expected I/O replies should be flagged,
> otherwise we're wasting lots of ACPI deep idle opportunities.
Another issue is we might submit I/O request on cpu A, but the corresponding
interrupt is sent to cpu B. It's common. So the SOFTIRQ on cpu B would send
an IPI to cpu A to schedule process to run on cpu A to finish the I/O.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists