From: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:29:57 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53C01F15.2090702@semaphore.gr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140711165710.GA18033@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
Hi Pavel!
On 11/07/2014 07:57 μμ, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Tested on Intel i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz and on ARM quad core 1500MHz Krait
>> (Android smartphone).
>> Benchmarks on Intel i7 shows a performance improvement on low and medium
>> work loads with lower power consumption. Specifics:
>>
>> Phoronix Linux Kernel Compilation 3.1:
>> Time: -0.40%, energy: -0.07%
>> Phoronix Apache:
>> Time: -4.98%, energy: -2.35%
>> Phoronix FFMPEG:
>> Time: -6.29%, energy: -4.02%
>
> Hmm. Intel i7 should be race-to-idle machine. So basically rule like
> if (load > 0) go to max frequency else go to lowest frequency would do
> the right thing in your test, right?
I don't think that "if (load > 0) go to max" will work even on i7.
For low load this will have impact on energy consumption.
On my tests, a simple mp3 decoding (very low load on my machine) have no
difference with and without this patch.
> So... should we do that, or do we need better benchmark?
I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understood exactly what do you mean by "better
benchmark".
Of course, we should do as many benchmarks as we can.
I usually do these 5 sets of benchmarks on my i7 that IMHO give a good
indication about the changes in different CPU loads.
1) Linux kernel compilation (about 85% busy CPU)
2) Apache (about 32% busy CPU)
3) ffmpeg (about 24% busy CPU)
4) mp3 decoding (about 0.3% CPU)
5) Idle system (about 0.06% CPU)
The patch was also tested on a Android smartphone (kernel 3.4). The kernel
distributed to 1000+ users.
Unfortunately I have no benchmarks, but no regressions reported on
consumption. Actually, there reports for better performance and
lower power consumption, but of course we can't rely on these reports. :)
Thanks for your comments!
Stratos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-11 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-30 16:59 [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect Stratos Karafotis
2014-06-30 16:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Introduce new relation for freq selection Stratos Karafotis
2014-06-30 16:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect Stratos Karafotis
2014-07-11 16:57 ` Pavel Machek
2014-07-11 17:29 ` Stratos Karafotis [this message]
2014-07-11 18:34 ` Pavel Machek
2014-07-11 19:37 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-07-20 21:51 ` Pavel Machek
2014-07-21 5:41 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-07-12 15:45 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Doug Smythies
2014-07-13 16:54 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-07-22 23:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-07-23 9:01 ` Stratos Karafotis
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=53C01F15.2090702@semaphore.gr \
--to=stratosk@semaphore.gr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/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).