Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1559944837-149589-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <1559944837-149589-4-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <20190611085410.GT3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <0D67CEAC-9710-4ECB-9248-75B48542FF82@amacapital.net> <20190611172717.GC3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190611172717.GC3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:14:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrW9gWtdHC3-b-VuWms5RRsSFuhhP1RsGrPDm0_bHZXK_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait
 C0.2 state
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:27 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrot=
e:
>
>
> (can you, perchance, look at a MUA that isn't 'broken' ?)
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:04:30AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 1:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wr=
ote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:00:35PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > >> C0.2 state in umwait and tpause instructions can be enabled or disab=
led
> > >> on a processor through IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR register.
> > >>
> > >> By default, C0.2 is enabled and the user wait instructions result in
> > >> lower power consumption with slower wakeup time.
> > >>
> > >> But in real time systems which require faster wakeup time although p=
ower
> > >> savings could be smaller, the administrator needs to disable C0.2 an=
d all
> > >> C0.2 requests from user applications revert to C0.1.
> > >>
> > >> A sysfs interface "/sys/devices/system/cpu/umwait_control/enable_c02=
" is
> > >> created to allow the administrator to control C0.2 state during run =
time.
> > >
> > > We already have an interface for applications to convey their latency
> > > requirements (pm-qos). We do not need another magic sys variable.
> >
> > I=E2=80=99m not sure I agree.  This isn=E2=80=99t an overall latency re=
quest, and
> > setting an absurdly low pm_qos will badly hurt idle power and turbo
> > performance.  Also, pm_qos isn=E2=80=99t exactly beautiful.
> >
> > (I speak from some experience. I may be literally the only person to
> > write a driver that listens to dev_pm_qos latency requests. And, in my
> > production box, I directly disable c states instead of messing with
> > pm_qos.)
> >
> > I do wonder whether anyone will ever use this particular control, thoug=
h.
>
> I agree that pm-qos is pretty terrible; but that doesn't mean we should
> just add random control files all over the place.

I don't think pm-qos is expressive enough.  It seems entirely
reasonable to want to do a C0.1 wait for lower latency *while waiting*
but still want full power-saving idle when not waiting.

Do we even know what the C0.2 and C0.1 latencies are?  And why is this
thing an MSR instead of a flag passed to UMWAIT?

--Andy