[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171115074358.4jf4sjpq4ffmhmpi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:43:58 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
WANG Chao <chao.wang@...oud.cn>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: use cpufreq_quick_get() for /proc/cpuinfo "cpu MHz"
again
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 1:06:12 AM CET Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > >> Current head + Raphaels patch:
> > >>
> > >> real 0m0.029s
> > >> user 0m0.000s
> > >> sys 0m0.010s
> > >>
> > >> So that patch is actually slower.
> > >
> > > Oh it definitely is expected to be slower, because it does the IPI to
> > > all the cores and actually gets their frequency right.
> > >
> > > It was the old one that we had to revert (because it did so
> > > sequentially) that was really bad, and took something like 2+ seconds
> > > on Ingo's 160-core thing, iirc.
> >
> > Looked it up. Ingo's machine "only" had 120 cores, and he said
> >
> > fomalhaut:~> time cat /proc/cpuinfo >/dev/null
> > real 0m2.689s
> >
> > for the bad serial case, so yeah, it looks "a bit" better than it was ;)
>
> OK, so may I queue it up?
>
> I don't think I can get that to work substantially faster anyway ...
The new version is OK I suppose:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
I also think that /proc/cpuinfo is a pretty bad interface for many uses - I
personally only very rarely need the cpuinfo of _all_ CPUs.
We we should eventually have /proc/cpu/N/info or so, so that 99% of the times
cpuinfo is needed to report bugs we can do:
cat /proc/cpu/0/info
With maybe also the following variants:
/proc/cpu/first/
/proc/cpu/last/
/proc/cpu/current/
... to the first/last/current CPUs.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists