On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 05:04 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 16:24 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 17:39 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > Should the default idle state not then be governor >> > > dependent? When I >> > > set gov=performance, I'm expecting box to go just as fast as it >> > > can >> > > go >> > > without melting. Does polling risk CPU -> lava conversion? >> > Current CPUs can only have some cores run at full speed >> > (turbo mode) if other cores are idling and/or running at >> > lower speeds. >> The real world is very unlikely to miss the prettier numbers I'm >> grieving over one tiny bit. Knowing that doesn't make giving them up >> any easier though.. byebye cycles (sniff) ;-) > > I suspect your pipe benchmark could be very relevant to > network performance numbers, too. > > I would like to go into polling a little bit more aggressively > in a future kernel,
Agreed, but -> > and I think we can get away with it if we > teach the polling loop to exit after we have spent enough time > there that the menu governor will pick HLT after a few timed > out poll loops. -> my concern about this approach is that it would add an artificial point to the menu governor statistics at whatever the timeout is chosen to be.