[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKniGkxxzvPvEDSU9BgtubR-5Fn3YsepjSNAwn5XkL3nVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:31:18 -0500
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, athorlton@....com,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, chegu_vinod@...com,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Idle power fix regresses ebizzy performance (was 3.12-stable
backport of NUMA balancing patches)
> This is a false alarm.
Thanks for the follow-up, Mel.
Agreed, it makes no sense for ebizzy measure 'throughput', when a
library debug bottleneck
prevents it from scaling past 3% CPU utilization.
Still, the broken configuration did find a difference due to the
addition of CLFLUSH on this box.
It makes me wonder if we will find issues on workloads that may depend
on the latency
of idle entry/exit, or perhaps sensitivity to the state of the cache
line containing thread_info->flags.
If somebody runs into such a workload, please try changing this 1 line
of intel_idle.c to limit
the CLFLUSH to C-states deeper than C1E, and let me know what you see.
- if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CLFLUSH_MONITOR))
+ if ((eax > 1) && this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CLFLUSH_MONITOR))
clflush((void *)¤t_thread_info()->flags);
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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