On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:01:34PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:44:40PM +0100, Leo Yan wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:31:37PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 06:58:30AM +0100, Leo Yan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 05:57:48PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
[...]
There may have more than one kind of 'active idle' state for cluster; for example, all cores in cluster can into 'WFI' state will have a corresponding 'active idle' state; and all cores in cluster run into 'CPUOFF' state will have another corresponding 'active idle' state. These two kind of 'active idle' state we also should handle as the same one?
Furthermore, if one CPU only run into 'WFI' and other CPUs in the cluster run into 'CPUOFF', how to select the 'active idle' state?
Wouldn't it primarily affect the core energy consumption? I would associate the energy delta between all WFI and all CPUOff with the cores and not the cluster as I would have thought it was caused by powering off the cores. The cluster logic would be on and clocked in both cases and since the cores are idling they shouldn't cause any (different) Pd for the cluster in the two cases. Why would the selected core idle-state affect the cluster? Do you have an example?
Totally agree for this; and selected core idle-state will _NOT_ affect cluster level at all.
"The cluster logic would be on and clocked in both cases and since the cores are idling they shouldn't cause any (different) Pd for the cluster in the two cases."
So during 'active idle' period we need directly to use cluster's (Pd + Ps) to caluculate cluster level's power.
Whatever it's 'active idle' state and other running states, the cluster level is always active (there may have small difference for snooping); so we can caluclate the cluster level's power with the same way.
Thanks, Leo Yan