[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <393b63b7caa7474a97baf248c4891b72@SC-EXCH02.marvell.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:53:40 +0000
From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Viresh Kumar" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: regression caused by bb6ab52f2bef ("intel_pstate: Do not set
utilization update hook too early")
Dear Rafael,
I used intel_pstate.
I just tested v4.7-rc3, which should include commit 4578ee7e1def intel_pstate: Avoid
unnecessary synchronize_sched() during initialization, I can still get the same
wakeups, so it's not sufficient.
Another clue maybe helpful, I found these top2 wakeup/s is consistent, e.g
rcu_sched always gives about 10 wakeups/s, and tick_sched_timer gave
5.6-5.9 wakeups/s,
144.3 µs/s 10.0 Process [rcu_sched]
193.9 µs/s 5.7 Timer tick_sched_timer
Thanks,
Jisheng
________________________________________
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 23:42
To: Jisheng Zhang
Cc: Peter Zijlstra; Paul E. McKenney; Rafael J. Wysocki; Viresh Kumar; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; Linux Kernel Mailing List
Subject: Re: regression caused by bb6ab52f2bef ("intel_pstate: Do not set utilization update hook too early")
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> First of all, sorry for top post, only webmail is available now.
>>
>> Second, sorry again for report incorrect commit, I were too tired this morning so I remember the wrong commit. The regression is caused by bb6ab52f2bef ("intel_pstate: Do not set utilization update hook too early"), so I update the email title.
>
> OK, that makes much more sense. :-)
>
> And
>
> 4578ee7e1def intel_pstate: Avoid unnecessary synchronize_sched()
> during initialization
>
> is not sufficient I suppose?
I mean, it is not sufficient to reduce the number of wakeups again?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists