On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 7:26 AM Doug Smythies <dsmyth...@telus.net> wrote: > > On 2018.11.08 00:00 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 6:04:12 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote: > >> On 2018.11.04 08:31 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > ...[snip]... > >> The results are: > >> http://fast.smythies.com/linux-pm/k420/k420-dbench-teo3.htm > >> http://fast.smythies.com/linux-pm/k420/histo_compare.htm > > ...[snip]... > > >> There are some odd long idle durations with TEOv3 for idle > >> states 1, 2, and 3 that I'll watch for with v4 testing. > > > > That unfortunately is a result of bugs in the v4 (and v2 - v3 too). > > > > Namely, it doesn't take the cases when the tick has been stopped already > > into account correctly. IOW, all of the data points beyond the tick > > boundary > > should go into the "final" peak. > > > > I'll send a v5. > > With v5 there were no long idle durations for idle states 1, 2, and 3 for > this same Phoronix dbench test.
That's good news, thank you!
