On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:17:47PM +0000, Arjan van de Ven wrote:


> >> 1) A latency driven one
> >> 2) A performance impact on
> >>
> >> first one is pretty much the exit latency related time, sort of a
> >> "expected time to first instruction" (currently menuidle has the
> >> 99.999% worst case number, which is not useful for this, but is a
> >> first approximation). This is obviously the dominating number for
> >> expected-short running tasks
> >>
> >> second on is more of a "is there any cache/TLB left or is it flushed"
> >> kind of metric. It's more tricky to compute, since what is the cost of
> >> an empty cache (or even a cache migration) after all....  .... but I
> >> suspect it's in part what the scheduler will care about more for
> >> expected-long  running tasks.
> >
> > Yeah, so currently we 'assume' cache hotness based on runtime; see
> > task_hot(). A hint that the CPU wiped its caches might help there.
> if there's a simple api like
> sched_cpu_cache_wiped(int llc)
> that would be very nice for this; the menuidle side knows this
> for some cases and thus can just call it. This would be a very
> small and minimal change

What do you mean by "menuidle side knows this for some cases" ?
You mean you know that some C-state entries imply llc clean/invalidate ?


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

Reply via email to