linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] cpuidle: teo: Refine handling of short idle intervals

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <3892c0eb983900c184c6d06ffe8364e2da23ae2a.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 09:52:12 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Linux PM
 <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Daniel Lezcano
 <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>, 
 Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>, Aboorva Devarajan
 <aboorvad@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] cpuidle: teo: Refine handling of short idle
 intervals

On Thu, 2025-04-03 at 21:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> This series is intended to address an issue with overly aggressive selection
> of idle state 0 (the polling state) in teo on x86 in some cases when timer
> wakeups dominate the CPU wakeup pattern.

Hi Rafael, I ran SPECjbb2015 with and without these 2 patches on Granite Rapids
Xeon (GNR).

Expectation: no measurable difference, because there is almost no POLL in case
of SPECjbb2015 on GNR.

Result: no measurable difference.

Conclusion: these 2 patches do not introduce a regression as measured by
SPECjbb2015 on GNR.

"No regression" is also a useful piece of information, so reporting.

Thanks, Artem.