[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46cd0758-3bf9-a907-4b8d-5c7338934fc8@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:35:33 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, 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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
On 2017/7/12 0:09, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:41:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>> - totally from arch_cpu_idle_enter entry to arch_cpu_idle_exit return costs
>>> 9122ns - 15318ns.
>>> --In this period, rcu_idle_enter costs 1985ns - 2262ns, rcu_idle_exit costs
>>> 1813ns - 3507ns
>>
>> Is that the POPF being painful? or something else?
>
> Probably that and the atomic_add_return().
> We thought RCU idle cost is high, but it seems not. But it still has few microseconds
can be saved if we can remove them from fast idle path.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists