Hi Bill, Bill Holler wrote:
> If the CPU will not be busy long enough to amortize the cost > of Deeper C-state wakeup-latency, then the CPU will not go > into deeper C-state. This is the check missing from Aubrey's > proposal. The check helps improve performance dramatically > on latency-sensitive workloads that wake up for short periods > of time. This check may be the one hurting SPECPower. :-( > Which latency-sensitive workload are you refering? Do we have another one other than libmicro? The current checking not just hurts SPECPower, it actually hurts package c-state indeed when idle. Thanks, -Aubrey
