lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:29:51 +0000 From: "Pandruvada, Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com> To: "mgorman@...hsingularity.net" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org> CC: "matt@...eblueprint.co.uk" <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>, "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>, "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "Brandewie, Dirk J" <dirk.j.brandewie@...el.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, "umgwanakikbuti@...il.com" <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] intel_pstate: Increase hold-off time before busyness is scaled On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 20:43 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi Mel, > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Mel Gorman > <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote: > > [cut] > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > > b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > > index cd83d477e32d..54250084174a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > > @@ -999,7 +999,7 @@ static inline int32_t > > get_target_pstate_use_performance(struct cpudata *cpu) > > sample_time = pid_params.sample_rate_ms * USEC_PER_MSEC; > > duration_us = ktime_us_delta(cpu->sample.time, > > cpu->last_sample_time); > > - if (duration_us > sample_time * 3) { > > + if (duration_us > sample_time * 12) { > > sample_ratio = div_fp(int_tofp(sample_time), > > int_tofp(duration_us)); > > core_busy = mul_fp(core_busy, sample_ratio); > > -- > > I've been considering making a change like this, but I wasn't quite > sure how much greater the multiplier should be, so I've queued this > one up for 4.6. > We need to test power impact on different server workloads. So please hold on. We have server folks complaining that we already consume too much power. Thanks, Srinivas > That said please note that we're planning to make one significant > change to intel_pstate in the 4.6 cycle that's very likely to affect > your results. > > It is currently present in linux-next (commit 402c43ed2d74 "cpufreq: > intel_pstate: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks" in > the > linux-next branch of the linux-pm.git tree, that depends on commit > fe7034338ba0 "cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization > update callbacks" in the same branch). Also you can just pull from > the pm-cpufreq-test branch in linux-pm.git, but that contains much > more material. > > Thanks, > Rafael > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists