[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f384a766-d91a-4db5-9ed6-c1ed6079da1d@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:01:39 +0800
From: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, harisokn@...zon.com
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
x86@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, rafael@...nel.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, peterz@...radead.org, arnd@...db.de,
lenb@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, harisokn@...zon.com,
mtosatti@...hat.com, sudeep.holla@....com, cl@...two.org, maz@...nel.org,
misono.tomohiro@...itsu.com, maobibo@...ngson.cn, zhenglifeng1@...wei.com,
joao.m.martins@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 10/11] arm64: idle: export arch_cpu_idle()
在 2025/4/12 04:57, Ankur Arora 写道:
>
> Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
>
>> 在 2025/2/19 05:33, Ankur Arora 写道:
>>> Needed for cpuidle-haltpoll.
>>> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c
>>> index 05cfb347ec26..b85ba0df9b02 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c
>>> @@ -43,3 +43,4 @@ void __cpuidle arch_cpu_idle(void)
>>> */
>>> cpu_do_idle();
>>
>> Hi, Ankur,
>>
>> With haltpoll_driver registered, arch_cpu_idle() on x86 can select
>> mwait_idle() in idle threads.
>>
>> It use MONITOR sets up an effective address range that is monitored
>> for write-to-memory activities; MWAIT places the processor in
>> an optimized state (this may vary between different implementations)
>> until a write to the monitored address range occurs.
>
> MWAIT is more capable than WFE -- it allows selection of deeper idle
> state. IIRC C2/C3.
>
>> Should arch_cpu_idle() on arm64 also use the LDXR/WFE
>> to avoid wakeup IPI like x86 monitor/mwait?
>
> Avoiding the wakeup IPI needs TIF_NR_POLLING and polling in idle support
> that this series adds.
>
> As Haris notes, the negative with only using WFE is that it only allows
> a single idle state, one that is fairly shallow because the event-stream
> causes a wakeup every 100us.
>
> --
> ankur
Hi, Ankur and Haris
Got it, thanks for explaination :)
Comparing sched-pipe performance on Rund with Yitian 710, *IPC improved 35%*:
w/o haltpoll
Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0,1' (5 runs):
32521.53 msec task-clock # 2.000 CPUs utilized ( +- 1.16% )
38081402726 cycles # 1.171 GHz ( +- 1.70% )
27324614561 instructions # 0.72 insn per cycle ( +- 0.12% )
181 sched:sched_wake_idle_without_ipi # 0.006 K/sec
w/ haltpoll
Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0,1' (5 runs):
9477.15 msec task-clock # 2.000 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.89% )
21486828269 cycles # 2.267 GHz ( +- 0.35% )
23867109747 instructions # 1.11 insn per cycle ( +- 0.11% )
1925207 sched:sched_wake_idle_without_ipi # 0.203 M/sec
Comparing sched-pipe performance on QEMU with Kunpeng 920, *IPC improved 10%*:
w/o haltpoll
Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0,1' (5 runs):
34,007.89 msec task-clock # 2.000 CPUs utilized ( +- 8.86% )
4,407,859,620 cycles # 0.130 GHz ( +- 84.92% )
2,482,046,461 instructions # 0.56 insn per cycle ( +- 88.27% )
16 sched:sched_wake_idle_without_ipi # 0.470 /sec ( +- 98.77% )
17.00 +- 1.51 seconds time elapsed ( +- 8.86% )
w/ haltpoll
Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0,1' (5 runs):
16,894.37 msec task-clock # 2.000 CPUs utilized ( +- 3.80% )
8,703,158,826 cycles # 0.515 GHz ( +- 31.31% )
5,379,257,839 instructions # 0.62 insn per cycle ( +- 30.03% )
549,434 sched:sched_wake_idle_without_ipi # 32.522 K/sec ( +- 30.05% )
8.447 +- 0.321 seconds time elapsed ( +- 3.80% )
Tested-by: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
Thanks.
Shuai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists