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 S1751978AbeFEPbL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:31:11 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:38277 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751759AbeFEPbJ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:31:09 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIdruyU0Tg8n11r4b0tHt4M6b4TQ+OjR9z5ddcBGn/v3C5gDEzfLHHIfj4XEdeddPMqYNMa2w==
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:31:05 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: util_est: add running_sum tracking
Message-ID: <20180605153105.GM16081@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20180604160600.22052-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180604160600.22052-3-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtD8RDxT=-oO2VYJRbtwoEyEKEAau-Ad-bAd8L2T2zKWEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180605151129.GC32302@e110439-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180605151129.GC32302@e110439-lin>
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 05/06/18 16:11, Patrick Bellasi wrote:

[...]

> If I run an experiment with your example above, while using the
> performance governor to rule out any possible scale invariance
> difference, here is what I measure:
> 
>    Task1 (40ms delayed by the following Task2):
>                                mean          std     max
>       running_avg        455.387449    22.940168   492.0
>       util_avg           433.233288    17.395477   458.0
> 
>    Task2 (waking up at same time of Task1 and running before):
>                                mean          std     max
>       running_avg        430.281834    22.405175   455.0
>       util_avg           421.745331    22.098873   456.0
> 
> and if I compare Task1 above with another experiment where Task1 is
> running alone:
> 
>    Task1 (running alone):
>                                mean          std     min
>       running_avg        460.257895    22.103704   460.0
>       util_avg           435.119737    17.647556   461.0

Wait, why again in this last case running_avg != util_avg? :)