lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Use a recently used CPU as an idle candidate and the basis for SIS
Date
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:17:10 AM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:22:49AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:15:31 PM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > IA32_HWP_REQUEST has "Minimum_Performance", "Maximum_Performance" and
> > > "Desired_Performance" fields which can be used to give explicit
> > > frequency hints. And we really _should_ be doing that.
> > >
> > > Because, esp. in this scenario; a task migrating; the hardware really
> > > can't do anything sensible, whereas the OS _knows_.
> >
> > But IA32_HWP_REQUEST is not a cheap MSR to write to.
>
> That just means we might need to throttle writing to it, like it already
> does for the regular pstate (PERF_CTRL) msr in any case (also, is that a
> cheap msr?)
>
> Not touching it at all seems silly.

OK

So what field precisely would you touch? "desired"? If so, does that actually
guarantee anything to happen?

> But now that you made me look, intel_pstate_hwp_set() is horrible crap.
> You should _never_ do things like:
>
> rdmsr_on_cpu()
> /* frob value */
> wrmsr_on_cpu()
>
> That's insane.

I guess you mean it does too many IPIs? Or that it shouldn't do any IPIs
at all?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-01 08:52    [W:0.108 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site