[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b05c00e7-b5d8-0bcb-0b38-a91324ec597a@tu-dresden.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:59:57 +0100
From: Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH v7 5/8] cpuidle: Return nohz hint from
cpuidle_select()
On 2018-03-21 15:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> So please disregard this one entirely and take the v7.2 replacement
> instead of it:https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10299429/
>
> The current versions (including the above) is in the git branch at
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git \
> idle-loop-v7.2
With v7.2 (tested on SKL-SP from git) I see similar behavior in idle
as with v5: several cores which just keep the sched tick enabled.
Worse yet, some go only in C1 (not even C1E!?) despite sleeping the
full sched tick.
The resulting power consumption is ~105 W instead of ~ 70 W.
https://wwwpub.zih.tu-dresden.de/~tilsche/powernightmares/v7_2_skl_sp_idle.png
I have briefly ran v7 and I believe it was also affected.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists