Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1362018
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] nmi_backtrace: generate one-line reports for idle cpus |
| Date | 2016-03-21 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rfbEL-mO-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <rdoG6-4jI-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <rfafE-7J0-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rfb21-8iP-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rfb21-8iP-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rfbEL-mO-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 01:12:39PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> I do see mwait used in the ACPI 4.0 Processor Aggregator Device driver, but
> this seems sufficiently far removed from regular cpuidle that I don't
> think it's appropriate to tag the power_saving_thread() function -
> the initial commit talks about using the mechanism "to ride-out
> transient electrical and thermal emergencies."
>
> There's also the thermal "powerclamp" driver that enforces a particular
> amount of idle time across the system. For this one it's less clear to
> me whether this is a valid "idle" state that we should ignore when doing
> NMI backtracing. This would be the clamp_thread() function in
> drivers/thermal/intel_powerclamp.c. For now I'm not including it,
> but what do you think?
Both the acpi power aggregator and the powerclamp driver are forced idle
and have some serious issues, so are safe to ignore for now.
Also, I would explicitly not include them, because forced idle might
still be interesting.
> ># nm -n ivb-ep-build/vmlinux | awk '/__cpuidle_text_start/ {p=1} {if (p) print $0} /__cpuidle_text_end/ {p=0}'
> >ffffffff81b16ca8 T __cpuidle_text_start
> >ffffffff81b16cb0 T default_idle
> >ffffffff81b16e50 t mwait_idle
> >ffffffff81b17080 t cpu_idle_poll
> >ffffffff81b17280 T default_idle_call
> >ffffffff81b172be T __cpuidle_text_end
> >
> >So no intel_idle for me..
>
> With the changes discussed so far in this email thread, we've gotten to:
>
> ffffffff818df178 T __cpuidle_text_start
> ffffffff818df180 T default_idle
> ffffffff818df260 t mwait_idle
> ffffffff818df3f0 T acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter
> ffffffff818df4a0 T default_idle_call
> ffffffff818df4e0 t cpu_idle_poll
> ffffffff818df600 t intel_idle_freeze
You can skip this one, that only happens when you suspend to idle.
> ffffffff818df6a0 t intel_idle
> ffffffff818df7b5 T __cpuidle_text_end
>
> This is about 1,600 bytes (or about 450 instructions) that will cause
> NMI to skip doing a backtrace if the PC is anywhere in the range.
Yeah, the alternative is making mwait_idle_with_hints an actual
function, but then we get to somehow exclude the other users like the
forced idle stuff.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] nmi_backtrace: generate one-line reports for idle cpus Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-21 16:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] nmi_backtrace: generate one-line reports for idle cpus Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-21 17:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] nmi_backtrace: generate one-line reports for idle cpus Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-21 18:20 +0100
csiph-web