[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170710172705.GA3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:27:05 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
len.brown@...el.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, 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, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 06:42:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 07:46:09AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > So how much of the gain is simply due to skipping NOHZ? Mike used to
> > > carry a patch that would throttle NOHZ. And that is a _far_ smaller and
> > > simpler patch to do.
> >
> > Have you ever looked at a ftrace or PT trace of the idle entry?
> >
> > There's just too much stuff going on there. NOHZ is just the tip
> > of the iceberg.
>
> I have, and last time I did the actual poking at the LAPIC (to make NOHZ
> happen) was by far the slowest thing happening.
That must have been a long time ago because modern systems use TSC deadline
for a very long time ...
It's still slow, but not as slow as the LAPIC.
> Data to indicate what hurts how much would be a very good addition to
> the Changelogs. Clearly you have some, you really should have shared.
Aubrey?
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists