On 27-10-20, 11:42, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 10/27/20 11:26, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >
> > On 27/10/20 11:11, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > On 10/22/20 14:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >> However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
> > >> intel_pstate/active mode. I also ha
On 10/27/20 11:26, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
> On 27/10/20 11:11, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 10/22/20 14:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
> >> intel_pstate/active mode. I also have very little sympathy for
> >> userspace.
> >
> >
On 27/10/20 11:11, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 10/22/20 14:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
>> intel_pstate/active mode. I also have very little sympathy for
>> userspace.
>
> Userspace is useful for testing and sanity checking. Not su
On 10/22/20 14:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 01:45:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:47:03 PM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 22-10-20, 09:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > Well, but we need to do something to force people onto schedut
On 10/23/2020 12:46 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 10/23/20 2:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:10:35PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
>>> * for the AMD EPYC machines we haven't yet implemented frequency invariant
>>> accounting, which might explain why schedutil looses
On 10/23/20 2:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:10:35PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
* for the AMD EPYC machines we haven't yet implemented frequency invariant
accounting, which might explain why schedutil looses to ondemand on all
the benchmarks.
Right, I poke
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:10:35PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> * for the AMD EPYC machines we haven't yet implemented frequency invariant
> accounting, which might explain why schedutil looses to ondemand on all
> the benchmarks.
Right, I poked the AMD people on that a few times, but n
On 22-10-20, 17:55, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 17:45, A L wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Peter Zijlstra -- Sent: 2020-10-22 -
> > 14:29
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:19:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> > However I do want to retire ondemand, conserv
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 09:32:55PM +0100 Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 07:59:43PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Agreed. I'd like the option to switch back if we make the default
> > > > change.
> > > > It's on the table and I'd like to be able to go that way.
> > > >
> > >
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 07:59:43PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Agreed. I'd like the option to switch back if we make the default change.
> > > It's on the table and I'd like to be able to go that way.
> > >
> >
> > Yep. It sounds chicken, but it's a useful safety net and a reasonable
> >
On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 22:10 +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> [...]
> To read the tables:
>
> Tilde (~) means the result is the same as baseline (or, the ratio is close
> to 1). The double asterisk (**) is a visual aid and means the result is
> worse than baseline (higher or lower depending on t
Hello Peter, Rafael,
back in August I tested a v5.8 kernel adding Rafael's patches from v5.9 that
make schedutil and HWP works together, i.e. f6ebbcf08f37 ("cpufreq:
intel_pstate:
Implement passive mode with HWP enabled").
The main point I took from the exercise is that tbench (network benchmark
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:35 PM Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:12:00AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > > > AFAIK, not quite (added Giovanni as he has been paying more attention).
> > > > Schedutil has improved since it was merged but not to the extent where
> > > > it is a drop-in re
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:12:00AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > > AFAIK, not quite (added Giovanni as he has been paying more attention).
> > > Schedutil has improved since it was merged but not to the extent where
> > > it is a drop-in replacement. The standard it needs to meet is that
> > > it is
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 05:25:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:52:50PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > There are some questions
> > currently on whether schedutil is good enough when HWP is not available.
>
> Srinivas and Rafael will know better, but Intel does run a
From: Peter Zijlstra -- Sent: 2020-10-22 - 14:29
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:19:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
>> > intel_pstate/active mode.
>>
>> I agree in general, but IMO it would not be prudent
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 5:25 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:52:50PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > There are some questions
> > currently on whether schedutil is good enough when HWP is not available.
>
> Srinivas and Rafael will know better, but Intel does run a lot of te
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 17:45, A L wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Peter Zijlstra -- Sent: 2020-10-22 - 14:29
>
>
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:19:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
> >> > intel_pstate/active mode.
> >
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:52:50PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> There are some questions
> currently on whether schedutil is good enough when HWP is not available.
Srinivas and Rafael will know better, but Intel does run a lot of tests
and IIRC it was found that schedutil was on-par for !HWP. That
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:58:13PM +0100 Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 22/10/2020 15:52, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:29:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:19:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> However I do want to retire ondemand, conservati
On 22/10/2020 15:52, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:29:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:19:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
intel_pstate/active mode.
>>>
>>> I agree in
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:29:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:19:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
> > > intel_pstate/active mode.
> >
> > I agree in general, but IMO it would not be prude
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:19:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
> > intel_pstate/active mode.
>
> I agree in general, but IMO it would not be prudent to do that without making
> schedutil provide the same level of perform
[CC linux-pm and Len]
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 2:02:13 PM CEST Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 01:45:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:47:03 PM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 22-10-20, 09:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > Well, but we
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 01:45:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:47:03 PM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 22-10-20, 09:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Well, but we need to do something to force people onto schedutil,
> > > otherwise we'll get more crap like this
25 matches
Mail list logo
