From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:51:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140720215151.GA7817@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53C03CDD.5020701@semaphore.gr>
Hi!
> >>>> Tested on Intel i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz and on ARM quad core 1500MHz Krait
> >>>> (Android smartphone).
> >>>> Benchmarks on Intel i7 shows a performance improvement on low and medium
> >>>> work loads with lower power consumption. Specifics:
> >>>>
> >>>> Phoronix Linux Kernel Compilation 3.1:
> >>>> Time: -0.40%, energy: -0.07%
> >>>> Phoronix Apache:
> >>>> Time: -4.98%, energy: -2.35%
> >>>> Phoronix FFMPEG:
> >>>> Time: -6.29%, energy: -4.02%
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. Intel i7 should be race-to-idle machine. So basically rule like
> >>> if (load > 0) go to max frequency else go to lowest frequency would do
> >>> the right thing in your test, right?
> >>
> >> I don't think that "if (load > 0) go to max" will work even on i7.
> >> For low load this will have impact on energy consumption.
> >
> > Are you sure? CPU frequency should not matter on idle CPU.
>
> Even on a totally idle CPU there will be a small impact because of leakage
> current (thanks to Dirk Brandewie for this info).
Are you sure? IIRC Intel cpus will automatically lower CPU frequency
in deep C states..
> This simple test on a nearly idle system shows this:
>
> [root@albert cpufreq]# for CPUFREQ in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor; do [ -f $CPUFREQ ] || continue; echo -n performance > $CPUFREQ; done
> [root@albert cpufreq]# /home/stratosk/kernels/linux-pm/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat -J sleep 20
> Core CPU Avg_MHz %Busy Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz SMI CPU%c1 CPU%c3 CPU%c6 CPU%c7 CoreTmp PkgTmp Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc3 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7 Pkg_J Cor_J GFX_J time
> - - 2 0.06 2712 3392 0 0.30 0.00 99.63 0.00 34 34 8.09 0.00 81.94 0.00 380.41 14.51 1.64 20.00
> 0 0 0 0.02 1891 3392 0 0.09 0.00 99.88 0.00 34 34 8.09 0.00 81.94 0.00 380.41 14.51 1.64 20.00
> 0 4 1 0.04 3006 3392 0 0.07
> 1 1 1 0.04 2501 3392 0 0.62 0.00 99.33 0.00 34
> 1 5 0 0.01 2346 3392 0 0.66
> 2 2 0 0.01 1996 3392 0 0.44 0.00 99.55 0.00 34
> 2 6 4 0.18 2278 3392 0 0.26
> 3 3 5 0.15 3449 3392 0 0.07 0.01 99.77 0.00 34
> 3 7 0 0.01 1839 3392 0 0.21
> 20.000899 sec
> [root@albert cpufreq]# ^C
> [root@albert cpufreq]# for CPUFREQ in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor; do [ -f $CPUFREQ ] || continue; echo -n ondemand > $CPUFREQ; done
> [root@albert cpufreq]# /home/stratosk/kernels/linux-pm/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat -J sleep 20
> Core CPU Avg_MHz %Busy Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz SMI CPU%c1 CPU%c3 CPU%c6 CPU%c7 CoreTmp PkgTmp Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc3 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7 Pkg_J Cor_J GFX_J time
> - - 2 0.09 1693 3392 0 0.35 0.01 99.55 0.00 35 36 8.33 0.00 84.31 0.00 377.68 12.23 1.15 20.00
> 0 0 1 0.08 1603 3392 0 0.13 0.00 99.79 0.00 35 36 8.33 0.00 84.31 0.00 377.68 12.23 1.15 20.00
> 0 4 1 0.08 1646 3392 0 0.13
> 1 1 1 0.06 1647 3392 0 0.66 0.00 99.28 0.00 35
> 1 5 0 0.01 1611 3392 0 0.71
> 2 2 0 0.02 1617 3392 0 0.50 0.02 99.46 0.00 35
> 2 6 4 0.22 1764 3392 0 0.30
> 3 3 4 0.25 1701 3392 0 0.07 0.00 99.68 0.00 35
> 3 7 0 0.01 1602 3392 0 0.31
> 20.001580 sec
>
>
> So, for low loads the impact will be higher.
So it seems ondemand saves cca 1% of energy?
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-20 21:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-30 16:59 [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect Stratos Karafotis
2014-06-30 16:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Introduce new relation for freq selection Stratos Karafotis
2014-06-30 16:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect Stratos Karafotis
2014-07-11 16:57 ` Pavel Machek
2014-07-11 17:29 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-07-11 18:34 ` Pavel Machek
2014-07-11 19:37 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-07-20 21:51 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2014-07-21 5:41 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-07-12 15:45 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Doug Smythies
2014-07-13 16:54 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-07-22 23:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-07-23 9:01 ` Stratos Karafotis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140720215151.GA7817@amd.pavel.ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=stratosk@semaphore.gr \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).