Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756602AbdGLCfo (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2017 22:35:44 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:60493 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754512AbdGLCfn (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2017 22:35:43 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,347,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="285757768" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods To: Frederic Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Lameter Cc: Andi Kleen , Aubrey Li , 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 References: <1499650721-5928-1-git-send-email-aubrey.li@intel.com> <20170710084647.zs6wkl3fumszd33g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170710144609.GD31832@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20170710164206.5aon5kelbisxqyxq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170710172705.GA3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20170711094157.5xcwkloxnjehieqv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170711160926.GA18805@lerouge> From: "Li, Aubrey" Message-ID: <46cd0758-3bf9-a907-4b8d-5c7338934fc8@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:35:33 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170711160926.GA18805@lerouge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 591 Lines: 16 On 2017/7/12 0:09, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:41:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >>> - totally from arch_cpu_idle_enter entry to arch_cpu_idle_exit return costs >>> 9122ns - 15318ns. >>> --In this period, rcu_idle_enter costs 1985ns - 2262ns, rcu_idle_exit costs >>> 1813ns - 3507ns >> >> Is that the POPF being painful? or something else? > > Probably that and the atomic_add_return(). > We thought RCU idle cost is high, but it seems not. But it still has few microseconds can be saved if we can remove them from fast idle path. Thanks, -Aubrey