linux-kernel - Re: [RFT][PATCH v2 0/3] cpuidle: teo: Do not check timers unconditionally every time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:09:57 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH v2 0/3] cpuidle: teo: Do not check timers unconditionally
 every time

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 5:38 PM Anna-Maria Behnsen
> <anna-maria@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11:12 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > This is the second iteration of:
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/4511619.LvFx2qVVIh@kreacher/
> > > >
> > > > with an additional patch.
> > > >
> > > > There are some small modifications of patch [1/3] and the new
> > > > patch causes governor statistics to play a role in deciding whether
> > > > or not to stop the scheduler tick.
> > > >
> > > > Testing would be much appreciated!
> > >
> > > For convenience, this series is now available in the following git branch:
> > >
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git \
> > >  pm-cpuidle-teo
> > >
> >
> > Gauthams tests and the distribution of idle time durations looks pretty
> > good. Also the prevention of calling tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() is very
> > nice (21477 calls of tick_nohz_next_event() and the tick was stopped 2670
> > times).
> >
> > Here is the deviation of idle time durations (based on your branch):
> >
> > Idle Total              2670    100.00%
> > x >= 4ms                2537    95.02%
> > 4ms> x >= 2ms           19      0.71%
> > 2ms > x >= 1ms          10      0.37%
> > 1ms > x >= 500us        7       0.26%
> > 500us > x >= 250us      6       0.22%
> > 250us > x >=100us       13      0.49%
> > 100us > x >= 50us       17      0.64%
> > 50us > x >= 25us        25      0.94%
> > 25us > x >= 10us        22      0.82%
> > 10us > x > 5us          9       0.34%
> > 5us > x                 5       0.19%
> 
> Thanks a lot for the data!
> 
> Can I add a Tested-by: tag from you to this series?
> 

Sure - sorry for the delay!