From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@tu-dresden.de>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 23:34:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5810003.D8QGLjubHr@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522008952.6308.46.camel@surriel.com>
On Sunday, March 25, 2018 10:15:52 PM CEST Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> --=-e8yLbs0aoH4SrxOskwwl
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 18:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >=20
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> > #include <linux/sched/idle.h>
> > =20
> > #define POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT (TICK_NSEC / 16)
> > +#define POLL_IDLE_COUNT 1000
> > =20
> > static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int
> > index)
> > @@ -18,9 +19,14 @@ static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cp
> > =20
> > local_irq_enable();
> > if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
> > + unsigned int loop_count =3D 0;
> > +
> > while (!need_resched()) {
> > cpu_relax();
> > + if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_COUNT)
> > + continue;
> > =20
> > + loop_count =3D 0;
> > if (local_clock() - time_start >
> > POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT)
> > break;
> > }
>
> OK, I am still seeing a performance
> degradation with the above, though
> not throughout the entire workload.
>
> It appears that making the idle loop
> do anything besides cpu_relax() for
> a significant amount of time slows
> things down.
I see.
> I plan to try two more things:
>
> 1) Disable polling on SMT systems, with
> the idea that putting one thread to
> sleep with monitor/mwait in C1 will
> allow the other thread to run faster.
Sounds plausible.
> 2) Insert more cpu_relax() calls into the
> main loop, so the CPU core spends more
> of its time in cpu_relax() and less
> time doing other things:
Well, maybe it's a matter of doing cpu_relax() between any other bits of
significant computation in there:
---
drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
#include <linux/sched/idle.h>
#define POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT (TICK_NSEC / 16)
+#define POLL_IDLE_COUNT 200
static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
@@ -18,11 +19,21 @@ static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cp
local_irq_enable();
if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
+ unsigned int loop_count = 0;
+
while (!need_resched()) {
cpu_relax();
-
+ if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_COUNT) {
+ cpu_relax();
+ continue;
+ }
+ cpu_relax();
+ loop_count = 0;
+ cpu_relax();
if (local_clock() - time_start > POLL_IDLE_TIME_LIMIT)
break;
+
+ cpu_relax();
}
}
current_clr_polling();
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-25 21:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-14 14:08 Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-22 16:32 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-22 17:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-22 17:19 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-22 17:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-25 20:15 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-25 21:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2018-03-25 21:45 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-26 5:59 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-26 7:13 ` Doug Smythies
2018-03-26 9:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-26 16:32 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-26 21:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-26 21:48 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-27 17:59 ` Rik van Riel
2018-03-27 21:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-14 15:00 Doug Smythies
2018-03-20 10:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-25 0:28 Doug Smythies
2018-03-25 11:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-25 21:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-26 6:01 ` Doug Smythies
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=5810003.D8QGLjubHr@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgalbraith@suse.de \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.ilsche@tu-dresden.de \
/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®