Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1742037 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quan Xu <quan.xu0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-29 12:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-09-29 12:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] sched/idle: update poll time when wakeup from idle Quan Xu <quan.xu0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 12:30 +0200
| From | Quan Xu <quan.xu0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-29 12:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] sched/idle: update poll time when wakeup from idle |
| Message-ID | <uv0Ip-4Vn-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On 2017/8/29 20:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:46:41AM +0000, Yang Zhang wrote: >> In ttwu_do_wakeup, it will update avg_idle when wakeup from idle. Here >> we just reuse this logic to update the poll time. It may be a little >> late to update the poll in ttwu_do_wakeup, but the test result shows no >> obvious performance gap compare with updating poll in irq handler. >> >> one problem is that idle_stamp only used when using CFS scheduler. But >> it is ok since it is the default policy for scheduler and only consider >> it should enough. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Quan Xu <quan.xu0@gmail.com> > Same broken SoB chain, and not a useful word on why you need to adjust > this crap to begin with. What you want that poll duration to be related > to is the cost of a VMEXIT/VMENTER cycle, not however long we happened > to be idle. > > So no. Peter, I think you are right.. IIUC, the time we happened to be idle may contain a chain of VMEXIT/VMENTER cycles, which would be mainly (except the last VMEXIT/VMENTER cycles) for just idle loops. right? as you mentioned, poll duration to be related to is the cost of __a__ VMEXIT/VMENTER cycle. howerver it is very difficult to measure a VMEXIT/VMENTER cycle accurately from kvm guest, we could find out an approximate one -- dropping the idle loops from the time we happened to be idle.. make sense? Quan
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web