lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] sched/fair: Penalty the cfs task which executes mwait/hlt
Date
On Monday, January 13, 2020 1:29:11 PM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:18:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, January 13, 2020 11:43:14 AM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Anyone, what will it take to get MPERF/TSC 'working' ?
> >
> > The same thing that intel_pstate does.
>
> But intel_pstate cheats, it has a FMS listing and possible 'interesting'
> chips are excluded. For instance, Core2 has APERF/MPERF, but
> intel_pstate does not support Core2.
>
> Simlarly, intel_pstate does (obviously) not support AMD chips, even tho
> those have APERF/MPERF.
>
> Although I suppose Core2 doesn't have VMX and is therefore less
> interesting, but then we'd need to gate the logic with something like:
>
> static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF) &&
> (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_VMX) || static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SVM)
>
> > Generally speaking, it shifts the mperf values by a number of positions
> > depending on the CPU model, but that is 1 except for KNL.
> >
> > See get_target_pstate().
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's the same KNL hack as
> TurboStat has.
>
> Is that really the only known case?

I'm not aware of any other at least as far as Intel chips go.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-14 23:46    [W:0.058 / U:2.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site