Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:11:58 +0200 | Subject | Re: [RFT][PATCH v2 0/3] cpuidle: teo: Do not check timers unconditionally every time |
| |
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 5:10 PM Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Aug 2023, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 5:38 PM Anna-Maria Behnsen > > <anna-maria@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11:12 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > > > This is the second iteration of: > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/4511619.LvFx2qVVIh@kreacher/ > > > > > > > > > > with an additional patch. > > > > > > > > > > There are some small modifications of patch [1/3] and the new > > > > > patch causes governor statistics to play a role in deciding whether > > > > > or not to stop the scheduler tick. > > > > > > > > > > Testing would be much appreciated! > > > > > > > > For convenience, this series is now available in the following git branch: > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git \ > > > > pm-cpuidle-teo > > > > > > > > > > Gauthams tests and the distribution of idle time durations looks pretty > > > good. Also the prevention of calling tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() is very > > > nice (21477 calls of tick_nohz_next_event() and the tick was stopped 2670 > > > times). > > > > > > Here is the deviation of idle time durations (based on your branch): > > > > > > Idle Total 2670 100.00% > > > x >= 4ms 2537 95.02% > > > 4ms> x >= 2ms 19 0.71% > > > 2ms > x >= 1ms 10 0.37% > > > 1ms > x >= 500us 7 0.26% > > > 500us > x >= 250us 6 0.22% > > > 250us > x >=100us 13 0.49% > > > 100us > x >= 50us 17 0.64% > > > 50us > x >= 25us 25 0.94% > > > 25us > x >= 10us 22 0.82% > > > 10us > x > 5us 9 0.34% > > > 5us > x 5 0.19% > > > > Thanks a lot for the data! > > > > Can I add a Tested-by: tag from you to this series? > > > > Sure - sorry for the delay!
No worries, thanks!
| |