From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933966AbbENOVE (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 14 May 2015 10:21:04 -0400
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:34210 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S933462AbbENOU5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 14 May 2015 10:20:57 -0400
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 16:20:51 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>, Tony Li <tony.li@amd.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Mwait usage on AMD processors
Message-ID: <20150514142051.GD29125@pd.tnic>
References: <20150514065451.GA29830@hr-slim.amd.com>
 <20150514092137.GA29235@pd.tnic>
 <20150514101727.GA6552@hr-slim.amd.com>
 <20150514112303.GC29125@pd.tnic>
 <20150514133857.GB6552@hr-slim.amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150514133857.GB6552@hr-slim.amd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:38:57PM +0800, Huang Rui wrote:
> Is C1E here you mentioned is waiting state that use mwaitx enters at
> AMD platform? If yes, please see below comments:
> 
> Current processor:
> Power saving: C0 < C1E (AMD) < C1

How is C1 > C1E ?

C1E is the Enhanced C1.

> Performance: Halt < Mwait <= Mwaitx

What performance? You're idle.

> Halt -> C1, and Mwaitx/Mwait -> C1E (AMD)

Huh? Right now we do HLT on all AMD and the hw enters C1E after a bunch
of stuff is fulfilled first. Are the plans to enter C1E from MWAIT now?

> Consider about the balance between power consumption and performance,
> so we want to expose the interface. And mwaitx has different opcode
> with traditional mwait.

There's alternative()'s for that.

> Due to C1E (AMD) less power saving that real C1, so you can think it
> still in C0 at current.

Which CPUs, current or upcoming?

If you want to do MWAITX for upcoming CPUs, simply define your own idle
routine and select it in select_idle_routine().

> In furture processor:
> HW designer would do Mwaitx -> C1 or deeper low power state.
> 
> BTW, could I expose it and send the patches to review?

You can always send out the patches, sure.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--