Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Track and expose idle PURR and SPURR ticks

From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:46:13 +0530

Hello Michael,

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:34:52PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Gautham R Shenoy <[email-masked]> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 03:46:35PM -0700, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> >> On 4/7/20 1:47 AM, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> >> > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <[email-masked]>
> >> > 
> >> > Hi,
> >> > 
> >> > This is the fifth version of the patches to track and expose idle PURR
> >> > and SPURR ticks. These patches are required by tools such as lparstat
> >> > to compute system utilization for capacity planning purposes.
> ...
> >> > 
> >> > Gautham R. Shenoy (5):
> >> >   powerpc: Move idle_loop_prolog()/epilog() functions to header file
> >> >   powerpc/idle: Store PURR snapshot in a per-cpu global variable
> >> >   powerpc/pseries: Account for SPURR ticks on idle CPUs
> >> >   powerpc/sysfs: Show idle_purr and idle_spurr for every CPU
> >> >   Documentation: Document sysfs interfaces purr, spurr, idle_purr,
> >> >     idle_spurr
> >> > 
> >> >  Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu | 39 +++++++++
> >> >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/idle.h                    | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c                        | 82 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >> >  arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/setup.c             |  8 +-
> >> >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-pseries.c                  | 39 ++-------
> >> >  5 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> >> >  create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/idle.h
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> Reviewed-by: Tyrel Datwyler <[email-masked]>
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing the patches.
> >
> >> 
> >> Any chance this is going to be merged in the near future? There is a patchset to
> >> update lparstat in the powerpc-utils package to calculate PURR/SPURR cpu
> >> utilization that I would like to merge, but have been holding off to make sure
> >> we are synced with this proposed patchset.
> >
> > Michael, could you please consider this for 5.8 ?
> 
> Yes. Has it been tested on KVM at all?

No. I haven't tested this on KVM. Will do that today.

> cheers

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.