From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C00B3A929 for ; Thu, 23 May 2024 09:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716456845; cv=none; b=jqQjYzeuas00tqLbHkNQRcgZTDTB4ya486P4el8bHPmQBJwki/mrE6gg7a2Jw8Rj57Xxgc1xlQOcmWg8fLmPPr7goW1Y+FoC8z3t5HMPLMGnKv6yrGqYnUyBZ+cmH++vOq4CQPycdlu0RBv9D/30BMHQ2B8uk5r3ohlleZdriwc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716456845; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Zny2wNgqTamRWkejdl43i5F34DfV9GBO0UMNYMGeFdA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dA7QN7dK2hfbHbxzhVSmv7n25hCzPcGD3w/Q1toXjySS1ENk88Bfi2JXa2SgUqdaCpyZ/jGHGNpvsi6H3tR5oLmgiQSDhckLyvZ6MLfk8SijWkutQtAJWiwoQGDXj4XcoOFX6tGEtkqrN+rN108+Md1o8LfvgKJf/D2hjtY/yA0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=hNOqFYp2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="hNOqFYp2" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=8hhCRUqXEu3HdppjYK3fgpfFwQbKZJat1RgK7sPaU7k=; b=hNOqFYp2FwMo1mse8DQ9+ENnlE H8cZNIhc35T7cOWBsjtVXSgx4LJuW1EIogLfhHRy1xfHOcquHp6ZTmg5YflAf3pvLbOF0JaiK12Vt fGJDGvLdktm96FGx9KNtjPhaLq4tpHRSnP9e3SMPYbvSvZAqFS+x3345gfm7/3WmLGkX+USINEs44 Gcx+Mbdbow8wV21B6hVEPdh4Mmnosesf5qpiB7d+wgtGSNRIBwRC1CzwcxnOJLyNJCGgkhtJlF0uO ZhDhUD+BTabQKDVW89dYH/GSIuIBmx99lWypNiCQcYnFPgJqny9uw9uw9aOV4V1D8+IdkYxYdXnWH w3MpIqeA==; Received: from j130084.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.130.84] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sA4pR-00000009ER6-3f9J; Thu, 23 May 2024 09:33:43 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EC50D30057C; Thu, 23 May 2024 11:33:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 11:33:38 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Luis Machado Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kprateek.nayak@amd.com, wuyun.abel@bytedance.com, tglx@linutronix.de, efault@gmx.de, nd , John Stultz , Hongyan.Xia2@arm.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/10] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue Message-ID: <20240523093338.GJ40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20240405102754.435410987@infradead.org> <20240405110010.631664251@infradead.org> <3888d7c8-660e-479c-8c10-8295204e5f36@arm.com> <1461277e-af68-41e7-947c-9178b55810b1@arm.com> <20240425104220.GE21980@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20240425114949.GH12673@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20240426093241.GI12673@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20240523084548.GI40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:06:04AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote: > Booting the kernel with NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE (default to false), things work fine. Then > if I switch to DELAY_DEQUEUE at runtime, things start using a lot more power. > > The interesting bit is if I switch to NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE again at runtime, things don't > go back to normal. Rather they stay the same, using a lot more energy. Ooh, cute.. weird. I'll try and see if we leak state somehow.