[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170713182820.sn3fjitnd3mca27p@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 20:28:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
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 Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:13:28PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2017/7/13 22:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Fixing C-state selection by creating an alternative idle path sounds so
> > very wrong.
>
> This only happens on the arch which has multiple hardware idle cstates, like
> Intel's processor. As long as we want to support multiple cstates, we have to
> make a selection(with cost of timestamp update and computation). That's fine
> in the normal idle path, but if we want a fast idle switch, we can make a
> tradeoff to use a low-latency one directly, that's why I proposed a fast idle
> path, so that we don't need to mix fast idle condition judgement in both idle
> entry and idle exit path.
That doesn't make sense. If you can decide to pick a shallow C state in
any way, you can fix the general selection too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists