[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160209204400.GC4875@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:44:00 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
lenb@...nel.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize int_sqrt for small values for faster idle
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 10:32:26PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01 2016, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 10:25:17PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 28 2016, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> >> >
> >> > The menu cpuidle governor does at least two int_sqrt() each time
> >> > we go into idle in get_typical_interval to compute stddev
> >> >
> >> > int_sqrts take 100-120 cycles each. Short idle latency is important
> >> > for many workloads.
> >> >
> >>
> >> If you want to optimize get_typical_interval(), why not just take the
> >> square root out of the equation (literally)?
> >>
> >> Something like
> >
> > Looks good. Yes that's a better fix.
> >
>
> Andi, did you have a way to measure the impact, and if so, could I get
> you to run the numbers again with my patch?
I got the numbers from the 0day runs (AIM7 gets faster)
In theory if you post the patch that should happen automatically
(checking with Fengguang)
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
Powered by blists - more mailing lists