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: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:40:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20130613214007.GA32127@pd.tnic> References: <7661669.NhG4BEI8zO@vostro.rjw.lan> <51B64BC6.6040400@semaphore.gr> <16929930.1G36b4NkSe@vostro.rjw.lan> <51BA380A.1040009@semaphore.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51BA380A.1040009@semaphore.gr> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stratos Karafotis Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , 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 Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote: > Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnMfNYUV1k0ddDdGdlJyUHpqT2xGY1lBOEt2UEVnNlE&usp=sharing > > Each test was running for 10sec. > Total execution time with and without the patch was almost identical, which is > expected since the tests in aim9 run for a specific period. > The energy during the test run was increased by 0.43% with the patch. > The performance was increased by 1.25% (average) with this patch. Not bad. However, exec_test and fork_test are kinda unexpected with such a high improvement percentage. Happen to have an explanation? FWIW, if we don't find any serious perf/power regressions with this patch, I'd say it is worth applying even solely for the code simplification it brings. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --