Re: power increase issue on light load

["Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 08:26 +0800, Nikhil Rao wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Alex,Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> wrote:
> >> > - Would it be possible to get a "perf sched" trace on these two kernels?
> >
> > I tried the 'perf sched record' and then 'perf sched trace' as usage
> > show. but in fact, the 'perf sched' doesn't support 'trace' command now.
> 
> I believe this was renamed to "perf script" in
> 133dc4c39c57eeef2577ca5b4ed24765b7a78ce2.
> 
> > since the 'perf sched record' is using 'perf record -e sched:xxx' to do
> > record. I used 'perf record' directly. The follow info collected in 300'
> > on my NHM-EP for benchmark bltk-office.
> >
> > [alexs@lkp-ne01 ~]$ grep -e Events.*sched
> > linux-2.6/perf-report-3.0.0-rc5
> > # Events: 11K sched:sched_wakeup
> > # Events: 1K sched:sched_wakeup_new
> > # Events: 24K sched:sched_switch
> > # Events: 3K sched:sched_migrate_task
> > # Events: 851  sched:sched_process_free
> > # Events: 1K sched:sched_process_exit
> > # Events: 1K sched:sched_process_wait
> > # Events: 1K sched:sched_process_fork
> > # Events: 12K sched:sched_stat_wait
> > # Events: 9K sched:sched_stat_sleep
> > # Events: 452  sched:sched_stat_iowait
> > # Events: 16K sched:sched_stat_runtime
> > [alexs@lkp-ne01 ~]$
> > [alexs@lkp-ne01 ~]$
> > [alexs@lkp-ne01 ~]$ grep -e
> > Events.*sched /mnt/linux-2.6.39/perf-report-2.6.39
> > # Events: 5K sched:sched_wakeup
> > # Events: 615  sched:sched_wakeup_new
> > # Events: 11K sched:sched_switch
> > # Events: 2K sched:sched_migrate_task
> > # Events: 541  sched:sched_process_free
> > # Events: 692  sched:sched_process_exit
> > # Events: 1K sched:sched_process_wait
> > # Events: 615  sched:sched_process_fork
> > # Events: 6K sched:sched_stat_wait
> > # Events: 4K sched:sched_stat_sleep
> > # Events: 178  sched:sched_stat_iowait
> > # Events: 9K sched:sched_stat_runtime
> >
> >
> 
> Thanks for the data but these raw counts are not very useful. Can you
> please send either the binary file or the ascii trace output for the
> two kernels? Also -- a 300s trace might be too much; about 30s should
> be sufficient.

The trace output file is much big, and guess no others has interesting
on it. I will give separately. :) 
> 
> -Thanks,
> Nikhil