Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-187274-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 11:33:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
	mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
	wuyun.abel@bytedance.com, tglx@linutronix.de, efault@gmx.de,
	nd <nd@arm.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	Hongyan.Xia2@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/10] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue
Message-ID: <20240523093338.GJ40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20240405102754.435410987@infradead.org>
 <20240405110010.631664251@infradead.org>
 <3888d7c8-660e-479c-8c10-8295204e5f36@arm.com>
 <1461277e-af68-41e7-947c-9178b55810b1@arm.com>
 <20240425104220.GE21980@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20240425114949.GH12673@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20240426093241.GI12673@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <c6152855-ef92-4c24-a3f5-64d4256b6789@arm.com>
 <20240523084548.GI40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <e4b472c9-ad8b-4423-81ad-02a1ab231f95@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e4b472c9-ad8b-4423-81ad-02a1ab231f95@arm.com>

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:06:04AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:

> Booting the kernel with NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE (default to false), things work fine. Then
> if I switch to DELAY_DEQUEUE at runtime, things start using a lot more power.
> 
> The interesting bit is if I switch to NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE again at runtime, things don't
> go back to normal. Rather they stay the same, using a lot more energy.

Ooh, cute.. weird. I'll try and see if we leak state somehow.