From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
To: Christian Loehle <[email protected]>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] cpuidle: Prefer teo over menu governor
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 18:42:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jhV12zL3FP1JoqUZNVMM5Fbj1NUUdsxeW0OsNWemJ7oA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 6:12 PM Christian Loehle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 9/30/24 16:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:27 AM Christian Loehle
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Since menu no longer has the interactivity boost teo works better
> >> overall, so make it the default.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christian Loehle <[email protected]>
>
> First of all thank you for taking a look.
>
> >
> > I know that this isn't strictly related to the use of iowait in menu,
> > but I'd rather wait with this one until the previous change in menu
> > settles down.
>
> Sure, I will look at any regressions that are reported, although "teo
> is performing better/worse/eqyal" would already be a pretty helpful hint
> and for me personally, if they do both perform badly I find debugging
> teo way easier.
>
> >
> > Also it would be good to provide some numbers to support the "teo
> > works better overall" claim above.
>
> Definitely, there are some in the overall cover-letter if you just
> compare equivalent menu/teo columns, but with the very fragmented
> cpuidle world this isn't anywhere near enough to back up that claim.
> We have found it to provide better results in both mobile and infra/
> server workloads on common arm64 platforms.
So why don't you add some numbers to the patch changelog?
If you can at least demonstrate that they are on par with each other
in some relevant benchmarks, then you can use the argument of teo
being more straightforward and so easier to reason about.
> That being said, I don't mind menu being around or even the default
> per-se, but would encourage anyone to give teo a try.
Fair enough.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-30 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-05 9:26 [RFT RFC PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: cpuidle: Remove iowait behaviour Christian Loehle
2024-09-05 9:26 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] cpuidle: menu: Remove iowait influence Christian Loehle
2024-09-30 14:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-09-05 9:26 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] cpuidle: Prefer teo over menu governor Christian Loehle
2024-09-30 15:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-09-30 16:12 ` Christian Loehle
2024-09-30 16:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2024-09-05 9:26 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] TEST: cpufreq/schedutil: Linear iowait boost step Christian Loehle
2024-09-05 9:26 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] TEST: cpufreq/schedutil: iowait boost cap sysfs Christian Loehle
2024-09-05 9:26 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] cpufreq/schedutil: Remove iowait boost Christian Loehle
2024-09-30 16:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-10-03 9:10 ` Christian Loehle
2024-10-03 9:47 ` Quentin Perret
2024-10-03 10:30 ` Christian Loehle
2024-10-05 0:39 ` Andres Freund
2024-10-09 9:54 ` Christian Loehle
2024-09-05 9:26 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] cpufreq: intel_pstate: " Christian Loehle
2024-09-12 11:22 ` [RFC PATCH] TEST: cpufreq: intel_pstate: sysfs iowait_boost_cap Christian Loehle
2024-09-30 18:03 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Remove iowait boost Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-09-30 20:35 ` srinivas pandruvada
2024-10-01 9:57 ` Christian Loehle
2024-10-01 14:46 ` srinivas pandruvada
2024-09-05 9:26 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] cpufreq: Remove SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT update Christian Loehle
2024-09-05 9:26 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] io_uring: Do not set iowait before sleeping Christian Loehle
2024-09-05 12:31 ` [RFT RFC PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: cpuidle: Remove iowait behaviour Christian Loehle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJZ5v0jhV12zL3FP1JoqUZNVMM5Fbj1NUUdsxeW0OsNWemJ7oA@mail.gmail.com \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox