[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <91d02dce-7a3c-371c-a247-55fce1e7124a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:27:56 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...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,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
On 7/17/2017 12:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now I think the problem is that the current predictor goes for an
> average idle duration. This means that we, on average, get it wrong 50%
> of the time. For performance that's bad.
that's not really what it does; it looks at next tick
and then discounts that based on history;
(with different discounts for different order of magnitude)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists