On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 2:51:13 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2018.03.20 23:33 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:03:50 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
> >> Summary: My results with kernel 4.16-rc6 and V8 of the patch set
> >> are completely different, and now show no cl
On 2018.03.20 23:33 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:03:50 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
>> Summary: My results with kernel 4.16-rc6 and V8 of the patch set
>> are completely different, and now show no clear difference
>> (a longer test might reveal something).
>
> Does this
On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:03:50 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
> Summary: My results with kernel 4.16-rc6 and V8 of the patch set
> are completely different, and now show no clear difference
> (a longer test might reveal something).
Does this mean that you see the "powernightmares" pattern with
Summary: My results with kernel 4.16-rc6 and V8 of the patch set
are completely different, and now show no clear difference
(a longer test might reveal something).
On 2018.03.20 10:16 Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2018.03.20 03:02 Thomas Ilsche wrote:
>
>...[snip]...
>
>> Consider the Skylake server
On 2018.03.20 03:02 Thomas Ilsche wrote:
...[snip]...
> Consider the Skylake server system which has residencies in C1E of
> 20 us and C6 of 800 us. I use a small while(1) {usleep(300);}
> unsynchronized pinned to each core. While this is an artificial
> case, it is a very innocent one - easy to
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Thomas Ilsche
wrote:
> On 2018-03-18 17:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> Doug, Thomas,
>>>
>>> Thank you both for the reports, much appreciated!
>>>
>>> Below is a drop-in v6 replacement for patch [4/7].
>>>
>>> With this new patch applied instead of the [4/7]
On 2018-03-18 17:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Doug, Thomas,
Thank you both for the reports, much appreciated!
Below is a drop-in v6 replacement for patch [4/7].
With this new patch applied instead of the [4/7] the behavior should be much
more in line with the v4 behavior, so please try it if y
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:36:52PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > My brain is just not willing to understand how that work this morning.
> > Also it sounds really dodgy.
>
> Well, I guess I can't really explain it better. :-)
I'll try again once my brain decides to wake up.
> The reason wh
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 05:15:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki
>>> wrote:
>>> > @@ -354,6 +360,7 @@ static int menu
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 05:15:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki
>> wrote:
>> > @@ -354,6 +360,7 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_dr
>> > if (latency_req > interacti
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 05:15:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki
> wrote:
> > @@ -354,6 +360,7 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_dr
> > if (latency_req > interactivity_req)
> > latency_req = interactivity_req;
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, March 17, 2018 5:11:53 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
>> On 2018.03.17 Thomas Ilsche wrote:
>>
>> > Over the last week I tested v4+pollv2 and now v5+pollv3. With v5, I
>> > observe a particular idle behavior, that I have not se
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2018.03.18 04:01 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> Below is a drop-in v6 replacement for patch [4/7].
>>
>> With this new patch applied instead of the [4/7] the behavior should be much
>> more in line with the v4 behavior, so please try it if
On 2018.03.18 04:01 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Below is a drop-in v6 replacement for patch [4/7].
>
> With this new patch applied instead of the [4/7] the behavior should be much
> more in line with the v4 behavior, so please try it if you can and let me know
> if that really is the case on your s
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 5:11:53 PM CET Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2018.03.17 Thomas Ilsche wrote:
>
> > Over the last week I tested v4+pollv2 and now v5+pollv3. With v5, I
> > observe a particular idle behavior, that I have not seen before with
> > v4. On a dual-socket Skylake system the idle p
On 2018.03.17 Thomas Ilsche wrote:
> Over the last week I tested v4+pollv2 and now v5+pollv3. With v5, I
> observe a particular idle behavior, that I have not seen before with
> v4. On a dual-socket Skylake system the idle power increases from
> 74.1 W (system total) to 85.5 W with a 300 HZ build
Over the last week I tested v4+pollv2 and now v5+pollv3. With v5, I
observe a particular idle behavior, that I have not seen before with
v4. On a dual-socket Skylake system the idle power increases from
74.1 W (system total) to 85.5 W with a 300 HZ build and even to
138.3 W with a 1000 HZ build. A
Hi All,
Thanks a lot for the feedback so far!
One more respin after the last batch of comments from Peter and Frederic.
The previous summary that still applies:
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 11:21:30 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> The problem is that if we stop the sched tick in
> tick_nohz_id
18 matches
Mail list logo
