Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 07:46:09 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        len.brown@intel.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
        arjan@linux.intel.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
Message-ID: <20170710144609.GD31832@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <1499650721-5928-1-git-send-email-aubrey.li@intel.com>
 <20170710084647.zs6wkl3fumszd33g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170710084647.zs6wkl3fumszd33g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 730
Lines: 21

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:46:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:38:30AM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
> > We measured 3%~5% improvemnt in disk IO workload, and 8%~20% improvement in
> > network workload. 
> 
> Argh, what a mess :/

The mess is really the current idle entry path.  People keep putting more
and more slow stuff there, not realizing it's really a critical fast path.

> 
> So how much of the gain is simply due to skipping NOHZ? Mike used to
> carry a patch that would throttle NOHZ. And that is a _far_ smaller and
> simpler patch to do.

Have you ever looked at a ftrace or PT trace of the idle entry?

There's just too much stuff going on there. NOHZ is just the tip
of the iceberg.

-Andi