Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200826120421.44356-1-guilhem@barpilot.io> <CAJZ5v0i8XUF39Vv=EM4TgyXgK6zHniZW3tGYFPweO3kg+BrxOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGX5Wg2OOgY6d1RH514Kh9D6b+siga+jzH7qubcmE+ukq+6KKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d0ca671465e6ce72c6c4d5178440ebc1e4814da8.camel@gmail.com>
 <e82c121057c4496238d3de7f7c919b7039d23b7c.camel@gmail.com>
 <CAGX5Wg0LrzPwf=2pGrQHAbFMVkOoYDxOoFa+ZmLBYshPvZQUXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8fa7622dacc03f2fbd67e810f53389e3ede544e8.camel@intel.com>
 <CAGX5Wg0=K5AaTut5KH3R3+oasM5MM7PaJ9Z_L56xSNckMbWC9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0j4FXH26rZCjM9Csd56skPVbRpM7iFcKYAFMmLFX54+bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9e6823d63fe2b9938e43a14c136b89aec0c503b.camel@gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0gPY+7YBeWwszoNBwsbKLFOEeuLaekdX62_gvbHXB8xoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGX5Wg3bVpgaFXHb1=4ikGk0P+4=XRqROBU4pqw1mpsY06dbHQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGX5Wg3bVpgaFXHb1=4ikGk0P+4=XRqROBU4pqw1mpsY06dbHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:00:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gJscMWLsjCm_L6jCDdZ2hdRB2mPtUBSgd1va7Xm7GyVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_idle: Add ICL support
To:     Guilhem Lettron <guilhem@barpilot.io>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:46 PM Guilhem Lettron <guilhem@barpilot.io> wrote:
>
> I've done more tests, maybe it can give you more hints.
> I don't see that much differences between both (with and without
> patches) in this cases.

OK, thanks!

I'm assuming that the topmost two sets of data are for the "without
the patch" case whereas the other three correspond to the "with the
patch" case.

If so, the processor clearly enters PC10 in both cases and the
residency percentages are similar.

The numbers of times the POLL state was selected in the first test
look kind of unusual (relatively very large), but other than this the
patch doesn't seem to make much of a difference, so I'm not going to
apply it.

Thanks!