From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751379AbeEPQbL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 16 May 2018 12:31:11 -0400
Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:37062 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750759AbeEPQbJ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 16 May 2018 12:31:09 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqVgdkAlEeY52Yx01BhUVnfhgmYyRbHERMue91+mBOmXB9/ohM/FSIBvvCGNRyyUPowxuunQg==
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 18:31:05 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        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
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] [PATCH 02/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional
 frequency invariant accounting
Message-ID: <20180516163105.GP28366@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20180516044911.28797-1-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
 <20180516044911.28797-3-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
 <20180516151925.GO28366@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180516154733.GF12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180516154733.GF12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 16/05/18 17:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

Indeed. I was mostly trying to see if adding this to the tick might
introduce noticeable overhead.