[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180305113803.GO25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:38:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 4/7] cpuidle: menu: Split idle duration
prediction from state selection
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 11:26:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> In order to address the issue with short idle duration predictions
> by the idle governor after the tick has been stopped, prepare the
> menu governor code for reordering with respect to the timekeeping
> code that stops the tick.
>
> Use the observation that menu_select() can be split into two
> functions, one predicting the idle duration and one selecting the
> idle state, and rework it accordingly.
I actually think this is the wrong way around.
We really should be predicting state not duration. Yes the duration
thing is an intermediate value, but I don't think it makes any sense
what so ever to preserve that in the predictor. The end result is the
idle state, we should aim for that.
As per:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/18/615
there are definite advantages to _not_ preserving duration information
beyond the state boundaries.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists