[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2010211422230.8475@hadrien>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:42:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...ia.fr>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 01:56:55PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Prior to 5.8, my machine was using intel_pstate and had few background
> > tasks. Thus the problem wasn't visible in practice. Starting with 5.8
> > the kernel decided that intel_cpufreq would be more appropriate, which
> > introduced kworkers every 0.004 seconds on all cores.
>
> That still doesn't make any sense. Are you running the legacy on-demand
> thing or something?
>
> Rafael, Srinivas, Viresh, how come it defaults to that?
The relevant commits are 33aa46f252c7, and 39a188b88332 that fixes a small
bug. I have a Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8870 v4 @ 2.10GHz that does not
have the HWP feature, even though the cores seemed to be able to change
their frequencies at the hardware level.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists