Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Selftest for cpuidle latency measurement

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>]

On 21/07/2020 14:42, Pratik Rajesh Sampat wrote:
> v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/17/369
> Changelog v2-->v3
> Based on comments from Gautham R. Shenoy adding the following in the
> selftest,
> 1. Grepping modules to determine if already loaded
> 2. Wrapper to enable/disable states
> 3. Preventing any operation/test on offlined CPUs 
> ---
> 
> The patch series introduces a mechanism to measure wakeup latency for
> IPI and timer based interrupts
> The motivation behind this series is to find significant deviations
> behind advertised latency and resisdency values

Why do you want to measure for the timer and the IPI ? Whatever the
source of the wakeup, the exit latency remains the same, no ?

Is all this kernel-ish code really needed ?

What about using a highres periodic timer and make it expires every eg.
50ms x 2400, so it is 120 secondes and measure the deviation. Repeat the
operation for each idle states.

And in order to make it as much accurate as possible, set the program
affinity on a CPU and isolate this one by preventing other processes to
be scheduled on and migrate the interrupts on the other CPUs.

That will be all userspace code, no?





-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog