[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22904760.5rGZuP5nsx@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 01:01:11 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
alex.shi@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHC 0/3] sched/idle : find the idlest cpu with cpuidle info
On Friday, March 28, 2014 01:29:53 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The following patchset provides an interaction between cpuidle and the scheduler.
>
> The first patch encapsulate the needed information for the scheduler in a
> separate cpuidle structure. The second one stores the pointer to this structure
> when entering idle. The third one, use this information to take the decision to
> find the idlest cpu.
>
> After some basic testing with hackbench, it appears there is an improvement for
> the performances (small) and for the duration of the idle states (which provides
> a better power saving).
>
> The measurement has been done with the 'idlestat' tool previously posted in this
> mailing list.
>
> So the benefit is good for both sides performance and power saving.
>
> The select_idle_sibling could be also improved in the same way.
Well, quite frankly, I don't really like this series. Not the idea itself, but
the way it has been implemented.
First off, if the scheduler is to access idle state data stored in struct
cpuidle_state, I'm not sure why we need a separate new structure for that?
Couldn't there be a pointer to a whole struct cpuidle_state from struct rq
instead? [->exit_latency is the only field that find_idlest_cpu() in your
third patch seems to be using anyway.]
Second, is accessing the idle state information for all CPUs from find_idlest_cpu()
guaranteed to be non-racy? I mean, what if a CPU changes its state from idle to
non-idle while another one is executing find_idlest_cpu()? In other words,
where's the read memory barrier corresponding to the write ones in the modified
cpu_idle_call()? And is the memory barrier actually sufficient? After all,
you need to guarantee that the CPU is still idle after you have evaluated
idle_cpu() on it.
Finally, is really the heuristics used by find_idlest_cpu() to select the "idlest"
CPU the best one? What about deeper vs shallower idle states, for example?
Rafael
--
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