在 2025/4/12 04:57, Ankur Arora 写道:
Shuai Xue <xueshuai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
在 2025/2/19 05:33, Ankur Arora 写道:
Needed for cpuidle-haltpoll.
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c
index 05cfb347ec26..b85ba0df9b02 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/idle.c
@@ -43,3 +43,4 @@ void __cpuidle arch_cpu_idle(void)
*/
cpu_do_idle();
Hi, Ankur,
With haltpoll_driver registered, arch_cpu_idle() on x86 can select
mwait_idle() in idle threads.
It use MONITOR sets up an effective address range that is monitored
for write-to-memory activities; MWAIT places the processor in
an optimized state (this may vary between different implementations)
until a write to the monitored address range occurs.
MWAIT is more capable than WFE -- it allows selection of deeper idle
state. IIRC C2/C3.
Should arch_cpu_idle() on arm64 also use the LDXR/WFE
to avoid wakeup IPI like x86 monitor/mwait?
Avoiding the wakeup IPI needs TIF_NR_POLLING and polling in idle support
that this series adds.
As Haris notes, the negative with only using WFE is that it only allows
a single idle state, one that is fairly shallow because the event-stream
causes a wakeup every 100us.
--
ankur
Hi, Ankur and Haris
Got it, thanks for explaination :)
Comparing sched-pipe performance on Rund with Yitian 710, *IPC improved 35%*:
w/o haltpoll
Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0,1' (5 runs):
32521.53 msec task-clock # 2.000 CPUs utilized ( +- 1.16% )
38081402726 cycles # 1.171 GHz ( +- 1.70% )
27324614561 instructions # 0.72 insn per cycle ( +- 0.12% )
181 sched:sched_wake_idle_without_ipi # 0.006 K/sec
w/ haltpoll
Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0,1' (5 runs):
9477.15 msec task-clock # 2.000 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.89% )
21486828269 cycles # 2.267 GHz ( +- 0.35% )
23867109747 instructions # 1.11 insn per cycle ( +- 0.11% )
1925207 sched:sched_wake_idle_without_ipi # 0.203 M/sec
Comparing sched-pipe performance on QEMU with Kunpeng 920, *IPC improved 10%*:
w/o haltpoll
Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0,1' (5 runs):
34,007.89 msec task-clock # 2.000 CPUs utilized ( +- 8.86% )
4,407,859,620 cycles # 0.130 GHz ( +- 84.92% )
2,482,046,461 instructions # 0.56 insn per cycle ( +- 88.27% )
16 sched:sched_wake_idle_without_ipi # 0.470 /sec ( +- 98.77% )
17.00 +- 1.51 seconds time elapsed ( +- 8.86% )
w/ haltpoll
Performance counter stats for 'CPU(s) 0,1' (5 runs):
16,894.37 msec task-clock # 2.000 CPUs utilized ( +- 3.80% )
8,703,158,826 cycles # 0.515 GHz ( +- 31.31% )
5,379,257,839 instructions # 0.62 insn per cycle ( +- 30.03% )
549,434 sched:sched_wake_idle_without_ipi # 32.522 K/sec ( +- 30.05% )
8.447 +- 0.321 seconds time elapsed ( +- 3.80% )
Tested-by: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
Shuai
