[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <003301d3bfaf$2d5e4090$881ac1b0$@net>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:21:58 -0700
From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@...us.net>
To: "'Thomas Ilsche'" <thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de>
Cc: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"'Thomas Gleixner'" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"'Paul McKenney'" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"'Rik van Riel'" <riel@...riel.com>,
"'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"'Aubrey Li'" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"'Mike Galbraith'" <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
"'Frederic Weisbecker'" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"'LKML'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@...us.net>,
"'Linux PM'" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFT][PATCH v5 7/7] cpuidle: menu: Avoid selecting shallow states with stopped tick
On 2018.03.19 05:47 Thomas Ilsche wrote:
> On 2018-03-15 23:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>
>> If the scheduler tick has been stopped already and the governor
>> selects a shallow idle state, the CPU can spend a long time in that
>> state if the selection is based on an inaccurate prediction of idle
>> time. That effect turns out to be noticeable, so it needs to be
>> mitigated.
>
> What are some common causes for that situation?
> How could I trigger this for testing?
It appeared quite readily with my simple 100% load
on one CPU test. Back then (V3) there only 6 patches in the set,
and before the re-spin there ended up being a patch 7 of 6, which
made a significant difference in both package power and the
histograms of times in each idle state.
Reference:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=152075419526696&w=2
... Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists