[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170718170511.m73o7ee2izsy6u66@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:05:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, len.brown@...el.com,
rjw@...ysocki.net, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.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 Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:37:57AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> that's just a matter of fixing the C1 and later thresholds to line up right.
> shrug that's the most trivial thing to do, it's a number in a table.
Well, they represent a physical measure, namely the break-even-time. If
you go muck with them you don't have anything left. This is tinkering
of the worst possible kind.
Fix the estimator if you want behavioural changes.
> some distros do those tunings anyway when they don't like the upstream tunings
*shudder*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists