From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
lenb@kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com,
jens.axboe@oracle.com, Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpuidle: Fix the menu governor to boost IO performance
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:39:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e5e476b0911040139h1f471627la4262a5fa66abab0@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090915054259.5282e5ba@infradead.org>
Hi Arjan,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> Subject: cpuidle: Fix the menu governor to boost IO performance
>
> Fix the menu idle governor which balances power savings, energy efficiency
> and performance impact.
I've tested this patch on an Atom based netbook with SSD, and I see
10% improvement in latencies for reading a single 4k block from disk.
During this test, while looking at powertop, I found that my CPU was
sitting in polling mode for milliseconds (percentage was however
negligible).
I never recalled seeing a non-zero time spent polling, so I looked at
the patch and found:
> + /*
> + * We want to default to C1 (hlt), not to busy polling
> + * unless the timer is happening really really soon.
> + */
> + if (data->expected_us > 5)
> + data->last_state_idx = CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START;
Commenting the if, (the previous behaviour), I no longer see the
polling, while I still get the performance improvement.
I wonder if that '5' is a bit too much. According to my BIOS ACPI
table, the Atom latency for C1 is ~ 1us, so there is very little
payback in polling on such processors. Should the check use the ACPI
declared C1 latency to decide whether we should poll or go to C1?
An other consideration is that sometimes, even if we expect to idle
for a short time, we end up idling for more (otherwise I would never
have seen ms polling, when expecting at most 5us). Should we set up a
timer, that would fire when switching to an higher C state would
conserve more energy?
Thanks,
Corrado
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-04 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-15 3:42 Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-15 3:54 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-15 4:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-15 4:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-15 5:03 ` Rik van Riel
2009-09-15 23:23 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-16 4:35 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-17 13:39 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-11-04 9:39 ` Corrado Zoccolo [this message]
2009-11-08 20:40 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-11-08 21:59 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-08 22:30 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-11-09 13:29 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-08 22:39 ` Arjan van de Ven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4e5e476b0911040139h1f471627la4262a5fa66abab0@mail.gmail.com \
--to=czoccolo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®