linux-pm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:29:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160119142933.GF8573@e106622-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160119112323.GB8573@e106622-lin>

On 19/01/16 11:23, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Catalin,
> 
> On 19/01/16 10:59, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:42:58PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On 18 January 2016 at 17:30, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > On 18/01/16 17:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > >> On 18 January 2016 at 16:13, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On 15/01/16 11:50, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > > >> >> On 01/08/2016 06:09 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:

[...]

> > 
> > Two questions:
> > 
> > 1. How is the boot time affected by the benchmark?
> > 2. How is the boot time affected by considering all the CPUs the same?
> > 
> > My preference is for DT and sysfs (especially useful for
> > development/tuning) but I'm not opposed to a boot-time benchmark if
> > people insist on it. If the answer to point 2 is "insignificant", we
> > could as well defer the capacity setting to user space (sysfs).
> > 
> 
> Given that we are not targeting boot time with this, but rather better
> performance afterwards, I don't expect significant differences; but,
> I'll get numbers :).
> 

I've got some boot time numbers on TC2 and Juno based on timestamps.
They are of course not accurate and maybe not so representative of
products, but I guess still ballpark right.

I'm generally seeing ~1sec increase in boot time for 1 and practically
no difference for 2 (even after having added patches that provide
runtime performance improvements).

Best,

- Juri


  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-19 14:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-08 14:09 [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] ARM: initialize cpu_scale to its default Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] drivers/cpufreq: implement init_cpu_capacity_default() Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] arm: Enable dynamic CPU capacity initialization Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: " Juri Lelli
2016-01-15 18:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems Mark Brown
2016-01-18 15:01   ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-15 19:50 ` Steve Muckle
2016-01-18 15:13   ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 16:13     ` Vincent Guittot
2016-01-18 16:30       ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 16:42         ` Vincent Guittot
2016-01-18 17:08           ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 17:23             ` Vincent Guittot
2016-01-19 10:59           ` Catalin Marinas
2016-01-19 11:23             ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-19 14:29               ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2016-01-19 19:48                 ` Steve Muckle
2016-01-19 21:10                   ` Mark Brown
2016-01-20 10:22                     ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 19:25     ` Steve Muckle
2016-01-19 15:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-19 17:50   ` Mark Brown
2016-01-20 10:25     ` Juri Lelli

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=20160119142933.GF8573@e106622-lin \
    --to=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=steve.muckle@linaro.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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).