[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190611090145.GU3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:01:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] x86/umwait: Enable user wait instructions
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:00:32PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> Today, if an application needs to wait for a very short duration
> they have to have spinloops. Spinloops consume more power and continue
> to use execution resources that could hurt its thread siblings in a core
> with hyperthreads. New instructions umonitor, umwait and tpause allow
> a low power alternative waiting at the same time could improve the HT
> sibling perform while giving it any power headroom. These instructions
> can be used in both user space and kernel space.
>
> A new MSR IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL allows kernel to set a time limit in
> TSC-quanta that prevents user applications from waiting for a long time.
> This allows applications to yield the CPU and the user application
> should consider using other alternatives to wait.
I'm confused on the purpose of this control; what do we win by limiting
this time?
> .../ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu | 21 ++
> arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h | 4 +
> arch/x86/power/Makefile | 1 +
> arch/x86/power/umwait.c | 182 ++++++++++++++++++
You seem to miss the arch/x86/lib/delay.c change to use this fancy new
stuff for udelay(). I'm thinking that's exactly what TPAUSE is good for.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists