[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190611172717.GC3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 19:27:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
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 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait
C0.2 state
(can you, perchance, look at a MUA that isn't 'broken' ?)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:04:30AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 2019, at 1:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:00:35PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> >> C0.2 state in umwait and tpause instructions can be enabled or disabled
> >> on a processor through IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR register.
> >>
> >> By default, C0.2 is enabled and the user wait instructions result in
> >> lower power consumption with slower wakeup time.
> >>
> >> But in real time systems which require faster wakeup time although power
> >> savings could be smaller, the administrator needs to disable C0.2 and all
> >> C0.2 requests from user applications revert to C0.1.
> >>
> >> A sysfs interface "/sys/devices/system/cpu/umwait_control/enable_c02" is
> >> created to allow the administrator to control C0.2 state during run time.
> >
> > We already have an interface for applications to convey their latency
> > requirements (pm-qos). We do not need another magic sys variable.
>
> I’m not sure I agree. This isn’t an overall latency request, and
> setting an absurdly low pm_qos will badly hurt idle power and turbo
> performance. Also, pm_qos isn’t exactly beautiful.
>
> (I speak from some experience. I may be literally the only person to
> write a driver that listens to dev_pm_qos latency requests. And, in my
> production box, I directly disable c states instead of messing with
> pm_qos.)
>
> I do wonder whether anyone will ever use this particular control, though.
I agree that pm-qos is pretty terrible; but that doesn't mean we should
just add random control files all over the place.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists