[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <598f0c65-6b3d-8562-6b8a-8edb508b0b00@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:59:41 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, len.brown@...el.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
ak@...ux.intel.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
On 2017/7/10 16:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:38:30AM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> We measured 3%~5% improvemnt in disk IO workload, and 8%~20% improvement in
>> network workload.
>
> Argh, what a mess :/
>
> So how much of the gain is simply due to skipping NOHZ?
netperf reports 6~7% improvement due to skipping NOHZ, but still have 2~3%
improvement due to excluding RCU idle enter/exit, c-state selection and other
deferrable items. Also a shallow HW c-state is used in the idle loop, which
means faster HW sleep enter and exit.
> Mike used to carry a patch that would throttle NOHZ. And that is a _far_ small
> and simpler patch to do.
>
Can you please point me to the link of Mike's patch?
Thanks,
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists