From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@redhat.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC v2] ACPI: acpi_pad: Do not launch acpi_pad threads on idle cpus
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:38:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3282057.yGUaGxRyCs@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180514154523.GA17331@sandybridge-desktop>
On Monday, May 14, 2018 5:45:23 PM CEST Yu Chen wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:30:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 1:53:22 PM CEST Chen Yu wrote:
> > > According to current implementation of acpi_pad driver,
> > > it does not make sense to spawn any power saving threads
> > > on the cpus which are already idle - it might bring
> > > unnecessary overhead on these idle cpus and causes power
> > > waste. So verify the condition that if the number of 'busy'
> > > cpus exceeds the amount of the 'forced idle' cpus is met.
> > > This is applicable due to round-robin attribute of the
> > > power saving threads, otherwise ignore the setting/ACPI
> > > notification.
> >
> > OK, but CPUs are busy, because they are running tasks. If acpi_pad
> > kthreads run on them, the tasks they are running will migrate to the
> > currently idle CPUs (unless they have specific CPU affinity) and the
> > throttling will not really be effective.
> >
> OK, I think this makes sense, I missed the load balance scenario.
> > I would think that acpi_pad should ensure that the requested number of
> > CPUs will not run anything other than throttling kthreads. Isn't that
> > the case?
> >
> Do you mean, we should check if the number of 'idle'(rather than the 'busy' one
> in this patch) cpus is larger than the requested one? Then I think we should also
> add a patch to use the play_idle() as power_clamp to treat the throttling kthreads
> as idle threads thus to stop system tick. Such as the patch Jacob proposed:
I wonder if that can be switched over to the new idle injection framework
added recently?
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-03 9:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-05 11:53 [PATCH][RFC v2] ACPI: acpi_pad: Do not launch acpi_pad threads on idle cpus Chen Yu
2018-05-13 9:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-14 15:45 ` Yu Chen
2018-05-14 20:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-10-03 9:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2018-12-10 6:31 ` joeyli
2018-12-11 3:12 ` Yu Chen
2018-12-11 8:37 ` joeyli
2018-12-12 1:56 ` Yu Chen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3282057.yGUaGxRyCs@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lszubowi@redhat.com \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).