[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16e12e23-6b28-f174-7c4b-4d719225cd3b@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 22:48:55 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.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 2017/7/13 16:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:32:40PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>>> It uses the normal idle path, it just makes the NOHZ enter fail.
>>
>> Which is only a small part of the problem.
>
> Given the data so far provided it was by far the biggest problem. If you
> want more things changed, you really have to give more data.
>
I have a data between arch_cpu_idle_enter and arch_cpu_idle_exit, this already
excluded HW sleep.
- totally from arch_cpu_idle_enter entry to arch_cpu_idle_exit return costs
9122ns - 15318ns.
---- In this period(arch idle), rcu_idle_enter costs 1985ns - 2262ns, rcu_idle_exit
costs 1813ns - 3507ns
Besides RCU, the period includes c-state selection on X86, a few timestamp updates
and a few computations in menu governor. Also, deep HW-cstate latency can be up
to 100+ microseconds, even if the system is very busy, CPU still has chance to enter
deep cstate, which I guess some outburst workloads are not happy with it.
That's my major concern without a fast idle path.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists