* Benjamin Herrenschmidt [2015-05-30 20:38:22]:
> On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 11:31 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> > In shared lpar case, spinning in guest context may potentially take
> > away cycles from other lpars waiting to run on the same physical cpu.
> >
> > So the policy in shared lp
On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 11:31 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> In shared lpar case, spinning in guest context may potentially take
> away cycles from other lpars waiting to run on the same physical cpu.
>
> So the policy in shared lpar case is to let PowerVM hypervisor know
> immediately that
On 05/30/2015 11:31 AM, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> * Preeti U Murthy [2015-05-29 19:17:17]:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> + if (max_idle_state > 1) {
>>> + snooze_timeout_en = true;
>>> + snooze_timeout = cpuidle_state_table[1].target_residency *
>>> +t
* Preeti U Murthy [2015-05-29 19:17:17]:
[snip]
> > + if (max_idle_state > 1) {
> > + snooze_timeout_en = true;
> > + snooze_timeout = cpuidle_state_table[1].target_residency *
> > +tb_ticks_per_usec;
> > + }
>
> Any idea why we don't have sno
Hi Shilpa,
The subject does not convey the purpose of this patch clearly IMO.
I would definitely suggest changing the subject to something like
"Auto promotion of snooze to deeper idle state" or similar.
On 05/29/2015 06:02 PM, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
> The idle cpus which stay in snooze for a lo
The idle cpus which stay in snooze for a long period can degrade the
perfomance of the sibling cpus. If the cpu stays in snooze for more
than target residency of the next available idle state, then exit from
snooze. This gives a chance to the cpuidle governor to re-evaluate the
last idle state of t
