[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9cb876ef-a62d-8df9-5fd0-c1b62036edde@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:41:10 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...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,
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 2017/7/17 17:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:03:14AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> fast idle doesn't have an upper bound.
>>
>> If the prediction exceeds the fast idle threshold any C state can be used.
>>
>> It's just another state (fast C1), but right now it has an own threshold
>> which may be different from standard C1.
>
> Given it uses the same estimate we end up with:
>
>
> Now, unless you're mister Turnbull, C2 will never get selected when
> fast_threshold > C2_threshold.
>
> Which is wrong. If you want to effectively scale the selection of C1,
> why not also change the C2 and further criteria.
>
That's not our intention, I think. As long as the predicted coming idle
period > threshold, we'll enter normal idle path, you can select any supported
c-states, tick can also be turned off for power saving. Any deferrable stuff
can be invoke as well because we'll sleep long enough.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists