lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Rework iowait boosting to be less aggressive
Date
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 8:25:37 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2019.02.07 03:51 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > The current iowait boosting mechanism in intel_pstate_update_util()
> > is quite aggressive, as it goes to the maximum P-state right away,
> > and may cause excessive amounts of energy to be used, which is not
> > desirable and arguably isn't necessary too.
> >
> > Follow commit a5a0809bc58e ("cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost
> > more energy efficient") that reworked the analogous iowait boost
> > mechanism in the schedutil governor and make the iowait boosting
> > in intel_pstate_update_util() work along the same lines.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > ---
> >
> > -> v2:
> > * Follow the Doug's suggestion and drop the immediate jump to
> > max P-state if boost is max. The code is simpler this way and
> > the perf impact should not be noticeable on average.
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> Something has broken on my incoming e-mail sorting stuff, and I
> missed this one (and some others).
>
> This V2 is not actually what I was proposing. I was O.K. with
> the immediate jump, but I didn't want the set_pstate step
> by-passed if it was already at max because that would also
> by-pass the trace sample, if it was enabled.
>
> Anyway, this V2 seems O.K. to me. I tested it compared to V1
> and, as you mentioned, wasn't able to detect any energy consumption
> or performance differences.

Thanks for the confirmation!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-18 23:05    [W:0.032 / U:24.288 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site