Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86 idle: Repair large-server 50-watt idle-power regression

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 05:20:10PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 11:51 -0800, tip-bot for Len Brown wrote:
> > Commit-ID:  40e2d7f9b5dae048789c64672bf3027fbb663ffa
> > Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/40e2d7f9b5dae048789c64672bf3027fbb663ffa
> > Author:     Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>
> > AuthorDate: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:44:57 -0500
> > Committer:  H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CommitDate: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:47:39 -0800
> > 
> > x86 idle: Repair large-server 50-watt idle-power regression
> 
> FYI this commit can cause some non trivial performance regressions for
> larger core count systems. While not surprising because of the nature of
> the change, having intel_idle do more cacheline invalidations, I still
> wanted to let you guys know. For instance, on a 160 core Westmere
> system, aim7 throughput can go down in a number of tests, anywhere from
> -10% to -25%.
> 
> I guess it comes down to one of those performance vs energy things. And
> sure, max_cstate can be set to overcome this, but it's still something
> that was previously taken for granted.

-10% to -25% seems a lot for a single cacheline flush. Also I would
expect the expected idle time to be very short while running aim7. So
could it be the cacheflush is actually taking longer than the expected
idle time?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/