Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:29:15 +0200 | Subject | Re: [RFT] [PATCH v2] cpuidle: menu: Skip tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() call in some cases |
| |
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 4:52 PM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 11:38 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Subject: [PATCH] cpuidle: menu: Skip tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() call in some cases > > > > Because the cost of calling tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() may increase > > in the future, reorder the code in menu_select() so it first uses the > > statistics to determine the expected idle duration. If that value is > > higher than RESIDENCY_THRESHOLD_NS, tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() will > > be called to obtain the time till the closest timer and refine the > > idle duration prediction if necessary. > > > > This causes the governor to always take the full overhead of > > get_typical_interval() with the assumption that the cost will be > > amortized by skipping the tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() call in the > > cases when the predicted idle duration is relatively very small. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > I ran the same tests as I did for the teo governor changes. > Nothing of significance to report (well, some minor improvements > in records per second at the long interval end of the sleeping > ebizzy test, with a corresponding slight increase in processor > package power). > > Tested-by: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Thank you!
| |