[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4242dd51-e2ae-874a-9246-2d80a134067a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:12:32 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, len.brown@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/8] cpuidle: make fast idle threshold tunable
On 2017/10/17 8:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:00:45 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2017/10/14 8:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:32 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> Add a knob to make fast idle threshold tunable
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> I first of all am not sure about the need to add a tunable for this at all
>>> in the first place.
>>
>> Actually I think a fixed value(10) might be good enough but not quite sure
>> if there is a requirement to tune it for different scenario, for example even
>> if the predicted idle interval is 100x overhead, I still want a fast path for
>> a better benchmark score?
>
> Any new tunables make the test matrix expand considerably, so it generally is
> better to err on the conservative side with adding them.
>
Okay, it's fine for me without it. I'll remove in the next version.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists