lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRE: [RFC PATCH 3/3] idle: store the idle state index in the struct rq
On Sat, 1 Feb 2014, Brown, Len wrote:

> > Right now (on ARM at least but I imagine this is pretty universal), the
> > biggest impact on information accuracy for a CPU depends on what the
> > other CPUs are doing. The most obvious example is cluster power down.
> > For a cluster to be powered down, all the CPUs sharing this cluster must
> > also be powered down. And all those CPUs must have agreed to a possible
> > cluster power down in advance as well. But it is not because an idle
> > CPU has agreed to the extra latency imposed by a cluster power down that
> > the cluster has actually powered down since another CPU in that cluster
> > might still be running, in which case the recorded latency information
> > for that idle CPU would be higher than it would be in practice at that
> > moment.
>
> That will not work.

What will not work?

> When a CPU goes idle, it uses the CURRENT criteria for entering that state.
> If the criteria change after it has entered the state, are you going
> to wake it up so it can re-evaluate? No.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

> That is why the state must describe the worst case latency
> that CPU may see when waking from the state on THAT entry.

No disagreement there. Isn't that what I'm saying?

> That is why we use the package C-state numbers to describe
> core C-states on IA.

And your point is?


Nicolas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-01 17:01    [W:0.107 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site