Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1258774
| From | Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpuidle,x86: increase forced cut-off for polling to 20us |
| Date | 2015-10-29 14:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qoV7P-Ao-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qoI0V-Fc-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qoI0W-Fc-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qoStj-7jq-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qoU25-89o-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 10/29/2015 12:54 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 10/29/2015 06:17 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 10/28/2015 11:46 PM, riel@redhat.com wrote: >>> From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> >>> >>> The cpuidle menu governor has a forced cut-off for polling at 5us, >>> in order to deal with firmware that gives the OS bad information >>> on cpuidle states, leading to the system spending way too much time >>> in polling. >> >> May be I am misunderstanding your explanation but it is not how I read >> the code. >> >> The default idle state is C1 (hlt) if no other states suits the >> constraint. If a timer is happening really soon, then set the default >> idle state to POLL if no other idle state suits the constraint. >> >> That applies only on x86. > > With the current code, the default idle state is C1 (hlt) even if > C1 does not suit the constraint. > >> This is not related to break-even but exit latency. > > Why would we not care about break-even for C1? > > On systems where going into C1 for too-short periods wastes > power, why would we waste the power when we expect a very > short sleep? > >> IMO, we should just drop this 5us and the POLL state selection in the >> menu governor as we have since a while hyper fast C1 exit. Except a few >> embedded processors where polling is not adequate. > > We have hyper fast C1 exit on Nehalem and newer high performance > chips. On those chips, we will pick C1 (or deeper) when we have > an expected sleep time of just a few microseconds. > > However, on Atom, and for the paravirt cpuidle driver I am > working on, C1 exit latency and target residence are higher > than the cut-off hardcoded in the menu governor. > >> Furthermore, the number of times the poll state is selected vs the other >> states is negligible. > > And it will continue to be with this patch, on CPUs with > hyper fast C1 exit. > > Which makes me confused about what your are objecting to, > since the system should continue to be have the way you want, > with the patch applied. Ok, I don't object the correctness of your patch but the reasoning behind this small optimization which bring us a lot of mess in the cpuidle code. As you are touching this part of the code, I take the opportunity to raise a discussion about it. From my POV, the poll state is *not* an idle state. It is like a vehicle burnout [1]. But it is inserted into the idle state tables using a trick with a macro CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START which already led us to some bugs. So instead of falling back into the poll state under certain circumstances, I propose we extract this state from the idle state table and we let the menu governor to fail choosing a state (or not). From the caller, we decide what to do (poll or C1) if the idle state selection fails or we choose to poll *before* like what we already have in kernel/sched/idle.c: in the idle loop: if (cpu_idle_force_poll || tick_check_broadcast_expired()) cpu_idle_poll(); else cpuidle_idle_call(); By this way, we: 1) factor out the idle state selection with the find_deepest_idle_state 2) remove the CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START macro 3) concentrate the optimization logic outside of a governor which will benefit to all architectures Does it make sense ? -- Daniel [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnout_%28vehicle%29 -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/3] cpuidle: small improvements & fixes for menu governor riel@redhat.com - 2015-10-29 00:10 +0100
[PATCH 1/3] cpuidle,x86: increase forced cut-off for polling to 20us riel@redhat.com - 2015-10-29 00:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpuidle,x86: increase forced cut-off for polling to 20us Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2015-10-29 11:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpuidle,x86: increase forced cut-off for polling to 20us Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> - 2015-10-29 13:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpuidle,x86: increase forced cut-off for polling to 20us Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2015-10-29 14:10 +0100
csiph-web