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;
IronPort-SDR: tSkMt0h2C2xvxL20YBYOVsfOddsy0s7nIl8V1v/DHaRRZOCfBLxVXFSo4+gDbebgXZLOi0ThEN
 UscQ4ZQsd38Q==
IronPort-SDR: 8AHFNJF+3w8JSgd/qPHH74lfBlMW2ftlBY3qS9VhpxGUhQk3o9DQvNNzE5+uzuO7gqJVgD88Lg
 oLXajWwEF7EQ==
Message-ID: <82c789766e71d29cf1a90f519d21ba310ae8fa95.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_idle: Add ICL support
From:   Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Guilhem Lettron <guilhem@barpilot.io>
Cc:     Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.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>
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 01:47:44 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gJscMWLsjCm_L6jCDdZ2hdRB2mPtUBSgd1va7Xm7GyVA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
         <CAJZ5v0gJscMWLsjCm_L6jCDdZ2hdRB2mPtUBSgd1va7Xm7GyVA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 19:00 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.

I think the sample period is too short.
Even with the same kernel, I can see the Busy% varies from 1% to 9%,
and the PkgWatt varies from 0.4W to 2.4W.

thanks,
rui

> 
> 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!