[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1521739156.6308.30.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:19:16 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()
On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 18:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:32:23 PM CET Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 15:08 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > >
> > > If poll_idle() is allowed to spin until need_resched() returns
> > > 'true',
> > > it may actually spin for a much longer time than expected by the
> > > idle
> > > governor, since set_tsk_need_resched() is not always called by
> > > the
> > > timer interrupt handler. If that happens, the CPU may spend much
> > > more time than anticipated in the "polling" state.
> > >
> > > To prevent that from happening, limit the time of the spinning
> > > loop
> > > in poll_idle().
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >
> > So ... about bisecting that other patch series...
> >
> > It turned out I had this patch, which looks so
> > obviously correct, as patch #1 in my series.
> >
> > It also turned out that this patch is responsible
> > for the entire 5-10% increase in CPU use for the
> > memcache style workload.
> >
> > I wonder if keeping an idle HT thread much busier
> > than before slows down its sibling, or something
> > like that.
>
> Uhm, sorry about this.
No worries, this is why we do patch reviews and
tests in the first place.
> Does it improve if you do something like the below on top of it?
That was my next thing to try, after testing just
the idle nohz series by itself :)
I'll push both into the test systems, and will
get back to you when I have answers.
> > Let me go test the nohz idle series by itself,
> > without this patch.
>
> OK
>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> #include <linux/sched/idle.h>
>
> #define POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT (TICK_NSEC / 16)
> +#define POLL_IDLE_COUNT 1000
>
> static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int
> index)
> @@ -18,9 +19,14 @@ static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cp
>
> local_irq_enable();
> if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
> + unsigned int loop_count = 0;
> +
> while (!need_resched()) {
> cpu_relax();
> + if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_COUNT)
> + continue;
>
> + loop_count = 0;
> if (local_clock() - time_start >
> POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT)
> break;
> }
>
>
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists