From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] [PATCH 02/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency invariant accounting Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:47:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20180516154733.GF12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180516044911.28797-1-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> <20180516044911.28797-3-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> <20180516151925.GO28366@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180516151925.GO28366@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Juri Lelli Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@suse.de, lenb@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, mgorman@techsingularity.net, x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:19:25PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote: > Anyway, FWIW I started testing this on a E5-2609 v3 and I'm not seeing > hackbench regressions so far (running with schedutil governor). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)#Server_processors Lists the E5 2609 v3 as not having turbo at all, which is basically a best case scenario for this patch. As I wrote earlier today; when turbo exists, like say the 2699, then when we're busy we'll run at U=2.3/3.6 ~ .64, which might confuse things.