From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:14:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20130609211449.GA5517@pd.tnic> References: <20130609162653.GA5004@pd.tnic> <51B4C497.2030308@semaphore.gr> <7661669.NhG4BEI8zO@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7661669.NhG4BEI8zO@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Stratos Karafotis , Borislav Petkov , Viresh Kumar , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Can you possibly prepare a graph showing both the execution time > and energy consumption for several different loop durations in your > program (let's keep the 5000 us sleep for now), including multiples of > sampling_rate as well as some other durations? Judgind by the times in C0 one of the cores spent, this small program is single-threaded and is a microbenchmark. And you know how optimizing against a microbenchmark doesn't really make a lot of sense. I wonder if lmbench or aim9 or whatever would make more sense to try here... Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --