Rafael J. Wysocki sisk.pl> writes:
>
> On Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:14:49 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Can you possibly prepare a graph showing both the execution time
> > > and energy consumption for several different
Rafael J. Wysocki rjw at sisk.pl writes:
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:14:49 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Can you possibly prepare a graph showing both the execution time
and energy consumption for several different loop
Hi,
On 06/14/2013 03:55 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, June 14, 2013 02:44:01 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:46:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> OK, so here's a deal. After 3.10-rc1 goes out, I'll put this into
>>> linux-next
>>
>> Yeah, you mean
On Friday, June 14, 2013 02:44:01 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:46:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > OK, so here's a deal. After 3.10-rc1 goes out, I'll put this into
> > linux-next
>
> Yeah, you mean 3.11-rc1 here...
Sure, sorry for the confusion.
> > for 3.12,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:46:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> OK, so here's a deal. After 3.10-rc1 goes out, I'll put this into
> linux-next
Yeah, you mean 3.11-rc1 here...
> for 3.12, so that people have a few more weeks to complain. If they
> don't, it'll go into 3.12.
but yep, sounds
On Friday, June 14, 2013 12:37:41 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:15:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40:08 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> [ … ]
>
> > > Not bad. However, exec_test and fork_test are kinda unexpected with such
> > > a
On Friday, June 14, 2013 12:37:41 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:15:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40:08 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
[ … ]
Not bad. However, exec_test and fork_test are kinda unexpected with such
a high
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:46:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
OK, so here's a deal. After 3.10-rc1 goes out, I'll put this into
linux-next
Yeah, you mean 3.11-rc1 here...
for 3.12, so that people have a few more weeks to complain. If they
don't, it'll go into 3.12.
but yep, sounds like
On Friday, June 14, 2013 02:44:01 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:46:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
OK, so here's a deal. After 3.10-rc1 goes out, I'll put this into
linux-next
Yeah, you mean 3.11-rc1 here...
Sure, sorry for the confusion.
for 3.12, so that
Hi,
On 06/14/2013 03:55 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, June 14, 2013 02:44:01 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:46:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
OK, so here's a deal. After 3.10-rc1 goes out, I'll put this into
linux-next
Yeah, you mean 3.11-rc1 here...
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 01:04:25AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> I believe that ondemand has better performance with this patch in
> medium loads. Maybe these operations produce small to medium loads
> (lower than up_threshold) and push the CPU to medium frequencies.
> Without the patch CPU
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:15:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40:08 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
[ … ]
> > Not bad. However, exec_test and fork_test are kinda unexpected with such
> > a high improvement percentage. Happen to have an explanation?
> >
> > FWIW,
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40:08 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> > Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite:
> >
On 06/14/2013 12:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite:
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnMfNYUV1k0ddDdGdlJyUHpqT2xGY1lBOEt2UEVnNlE=sharing
>>
>>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnMfNYUV1k0ddDdGdlJyUHpqT2xGY1lBOEt2UEVnNlE=sharing
>
> Each test was running for 10sec.
> Total execution
Hi Rafael,
On 06/11/2013 02:24 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:57:26 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> On 06/09/2013 11:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Well, this means that your changes may hurt performance if the load comes
>>> and
>>> goes in spikes, which is not
Hi Rafael,
On 06/11/2013 02:24 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:57:26 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 06/09/2013 11:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, this means that your changes may hurt performance if the load comes
and
goes in spikes, which is not so good.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnMfNYUV1k0ddDdGdlJyUHpqT2xGY1lBOEt2UEVnNlEusp=sharing
Each test was running for 10sec.
Total execution time
On 06/14/2013 12:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnMfNYUV1k0ddDdGdlJyUHpqT2xGY1lBOEt2UEVnNlEusp=sharing
Each
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40:08 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:15:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40:08 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
[ … ]
Not bad. However, exec_test and fork_test are kinda unexpected with such
a high improvement percentage. Happen to have an explanation?
FWIW, if we
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 01:04:25AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
I believe that ondemand has better performance with this patch in
medium loads. Maybe these operations produce small to medium loads
(lower than up_threshold) and push the CPU to medium frequencies.
Without the patch CPU stays
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:57:26 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 06/09/2013 11:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Well, this means that your changes may hurt performance if the load comes
> > and
> > goes in spikes, which is not so good. The fact that they cause less energy
> > to
> > be
On 06/09/2013 11:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, this means that your changes may hurt performance if the load comes and
> goes in spikes, which is not so good. The fact that they cause less energy to
> be used at the same time kind of balance that, though. [After all, we're
> talking
On 06/09/2013 11:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, this means that your changes may hurt performance if the load comes and
goes in spikes, which is not so good. The fact that they cause less energy to
be used at the same time kind of balance that, though. [After all, we're
talking about
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:57:26 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 06/09/2013 11:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, this means that your changes may hurt performance if the load comes
and
goes in spikes, which is not so good. The fact that they cause less energy
to
be used at the
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:14:49 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Can you possibly prepare a graph showing both the execution time
> > and energy consumption for several different loop durations in your
> > program (let's keep the
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Can you possibly prepare a graph showing both the execution time
> and energy consumption for several different loop durations in your
> program (let's keep the 5000 us sleep for now), including multiples of
> sampling_rate as
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 09:08:23 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 06/09/2013 07:26 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 12:18:09AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> The average power drawn by the package is slightly higher with the
> >> patchset applied (27.66 W vs 27.25 W),
On 06/09/2013 07:26 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 12:18:09AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> The average power drawn by the package is slightly higher with the
>> patchset applied (27.66 W vs 27.25 W), but since the time needed to
>> complete the workload with the
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 12:18:09AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The average power drawn by the package is slightly higher with the
> patchset applied (27.66 W vs 27.25 W), but since the time needed to
> complete the workload with the patchset applied was shorter by about
> 2.3 sec, the total
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 12:18:09AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The average power drawn by the package is slightly higher with the
patchset applied (27.66 W vs 27.25 W), but since the time needed to
complete the workload with the patchset applied was shorter by about
2.3 sec, the total
On 06/09/2013 07:26 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 12:18:09AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The average power drawn by the package is slightly higher with the
patchset applied (27.66 W vs 27.25 W), but since the time needed to
complete the workload with the patchset
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 09:08:23 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 06/09/2013 07:26 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 12:18:09AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The average power drawn by the package is slightly higher with the
patchset applied (27.66 W vs 27.25 W), but since
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Can you possibly prepare a graph showing both the execution time
and energy consumption for several different loop durations in your
program (let's keep the 5000 us sleep for now), including multiples of
sampling_rate as well
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:14:49 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Can you possibly prepare a graph showing both the execution time
and energy consumption for several different loop durations in your
program (let's keep the 5000 us
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:31:37 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 06/08/2013 05:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 08, 2013 03:34:29 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> I also did the test with the way you mentioned. But I thought to run
> >> turbostat for 100 sec as I did with
On 06/08/2013 05:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, June 08, 2013 03:34:29 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> I also did the test with the way you mentioned. But I thought to run
>> turbostat for 100 sec as I did with powertop.
>
> Ah, OK.
>
>> Actually benchmark lasts about 96 secs.
>>
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 03:34:29 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> I also did the test with the way you mentioned. But I thought to run
> turbostat for 100 sec as I did with powertop.
Ah, OK.
> Actually benchmark lasts about 96 secs.
>
> I think that we use almost the same energy for 100 sec to
I also did the test with the way you mentioned. But I thought to run turbostat
for 100 sec as I did with powertop.
Actually benchmark lasts about 96 secs.
I think that we use almost the same energy for 100 sec to run the same load a
little bit faster. I think this means also a reduce to power
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 12:56:00 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 06/07/2013 11:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, June 07, 2013 10:14:34 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> On 06/05/2013 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis
On 06/07/2013 11:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, June 07, 2013 10:14:34 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> On 06/05/2013 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Borislav,
On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav
On 06/07/2013 11:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, June 07, 2013 10:14:34 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 06/05/2013 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Borislav,
On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 12:56:00 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 06/07/2013 11:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, June 07, 2013 10:14:34 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 06/05/2013 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
I also did the test with the way you mentioned. But I thought to run turbostat
for 100 sec as I did with powertop.
Actually benchmark lasts about 96 secs.
I think that we use almost the same energy for 100 sec to run the same load a
little bit faster. I think this means also a reduce to power
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 03:34:29 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
I also did the test with the way you mentioned. But I thought to run
turbostat for 100 sec as I did with powertop.
Ah, OK.
Actually benchmark lasts about 96 secs.
I think that we use almost the same energy for 100 sec to run
On 06/08/2013 05:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 03:34:29 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
I also did the test with the way you mentioned. But I thought to run
turbostat for 100 sec as I did with powertop.
Ah, OK.
Actually benchmark lasts about 96 secs.
I think
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:31:37 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 06/08/2013 05:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 08, 2013 03:34:29 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
I also did the test with the way you mentioned. But I thought to run
turbostat for 100 sec as I did with
On Friday, June 07, 2013 10:14:34 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 06/05/2013 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> Hi Borislav,
> >>
> >> On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM
On 06/05/2013 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> Hi Borislav,
>>
>> On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Ondemand calculates load in terms of
On 06/05/2013 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Borislav,
On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and
On Friday, June 07, 2013 10:14:34 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 06/05/2013 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Borislav,
On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos
On 06/06/2013 08:11 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 07:46:17PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Apologies for top-posting. I was able to send email only from my phone.
Thanks for you hint about turbostat.
As you most probably understood, I'm individual amateur kernel
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 07:46:17PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> Apologies for top-posting. I was able to send email only from my phone.
>
> Thanks for you hint about turbostat.
>
> As you most probably understood, I'm individual amateur kernel developer.
> I could provide some numbers from
On 06/06/2013 03:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:40:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> his patch will give significant improvement both power & performance wise.
>
> Yes, and I'd like to see the paperwork on that. Numbers, and on a couple
> of platforms/vendors if
On 06/06/13 05:55, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Please do not top-post.
>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 12:58:33PM -0400, David C Niemi wrote:
>> When you are doing a locally-originated truly CPU-bound task, "race to
>> idle" does make some sense. But I can think of a couple of caveats.
>>
>> 1) If you
Please do not top-post.
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:54:20PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> I will try to provide the requested info (although, I'm not sure how
> to measure total energy :) )
tools/power/x86/turbostat looks like a good tool. It can show, a.o.,
power consumption in Watts on
Thanks Viresh. I think I couldn't explain this in better way.
Also thanks for acknowledgment!
Stratos
Viresh Kumar wrote:
>On 6 June 2013 15:31, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
>> Hold on, you say above "easily saturate minimum frequency and lead the
>> CPU to max". I read this as we jump straight
Hi Rafael,
I will try to provide the requested info (although, I'm not sure how to measure
total energy :) )
Thanks,
Stratos
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> Hi Borislav,
>>
>> On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> >
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:40:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> his patch will give significant improvement both power & performance wise.
Yes, and I'd like to see the paperwork on that. Numbers, and on a couple
of platforms/vendors if possible, please.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
On 6 June 2013 15:31, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hold on, you say above "easily saturate minimum frequency and lead the
> CPU to max". I read this as we jump straight to max P-state where we
> even boost.
Probably he meant: "At lowest levels of frequencies, a small load on system
may look like a
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:35:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> > Hi Borislav,
> >
> > On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> > >> Ondemand
On 6 June 2013 15:25, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> The correct "fix" for this whole deal is coupling cpufreq with
> the scheduler, as it has been said so many times before. You need
> "something" which can tell you whether raising the freq. is worth it or
> not (i.e. the process is waiting on IO or
Please do not top-post.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 12:58:33PM -0400, David C Niemi wrote:
> When you are doing a locally-originated truly CPU-bound task, "race to
> idle" does make some sense. But I can think of a couple of caveats.
>
> 1) If you care about power consumption, you want to avoid
>
Please do not top-post.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 12:58:33PM -0400, David C Niemi wrote:
When you are doing a locally-originated truly CPU-bound task, race to
idle does make some sense. But I can think of a couple of caveats.
1) If you care about power consumption, you want to avoid
On 6 June 2013 15:25, Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de wrote:
The correct fix for this whole deal is coupling cpufreq with
the scheduler, as it has been said so many times before. You need
something which can tell you whether raising the freq. is worth it or
not (i.e. the process is waiting on IO
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:35:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Borislav,
On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Ondemand calculates load
On 6 June 2013 15:31, Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de wrote:
Hold on, you say above easily saturate minimum frequency and lead the
CPU to max. I read this as we jump straight to max P-state where we
even boost.
Probably he meant: At lowest levels of frequencies, a small load on system
may look
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:40:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
his patch will give significant improvement both power performance wise.
Yes, and I'd like to see the paperwork on that. Numbers, and on a couple
of platforms/vendors if possible, please.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent
Hi Rafael,
I will try to provide the requested info (although, I'm not sure how to measure
total energy :) )
Thanks,
Stratos
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Borislav,
On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Thanks Viresh. I think I couldn't explain this in better way.
Also thanks for acknowledgment!
Stratos
Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 6 June 2013 15:31, Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de wrote:
Hold on, you say above easily saturate minimum frequency and lead the
CPU to max. I read
Please do not top-post.
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:54:20PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
I will try to provide the requested info (although, I'm not sure how
to measure total energy :) )
tools/power/x86/turbostat looks like a good tool. It can show, a.o.,
power consumption in Watts on modern
On 06/06/13 05:55, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Please do not top-post.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 12:58:33PM -0400, David C Niemi wrote:
When you are doing a locally-originated truly CPU-bound task, race to
idle does make some sense. But I can think of a couple of caveats.
1) If you care about
On 06/06/2013 03:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:40:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
his patch will give significant improvement both power performance wise.
Yes, and I'd like to see the paperwork on that. Numbers, and on a couple
of platforms/vendors if possible,
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 07:46:17PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Apologies for top-posting. I was able to send email only from my phone.
Thanks for you hint about turbostat.
As you most probably understood, I'm individual amateur kernel developer.
I could provide some numbers from x86
On 06/06/2013 08:11 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 07:46:17PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Apologies for top-posting. I was able to send email only from my phone.
Thanks for you hint about turbostat.
As you most probably understood, I'm individual amateur kernel
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> Hi Borislav,
>
> On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and increases it only
> >> if the load_freq
Hi Borislav,
On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and increases it only
if the load_freq is greater than up_threshold multiplied by current
or average frequency. This
When you are doing a locally-originated truly CPU-bound task, "race to idle"
does make some sense. But I can think of a couple of caveats.
1) If you care about power consumption, you want to avoid super-power-hungry
turbo states, as you get less done per watt-hour than in some of the middle
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and increases it only
> if the load_freq is greater than up_threshold multiplied by current
> or average frequency. This seems to produce oscillations of frequency
> between min and
Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and increases it only
if the load_freq is greater than up_threshold multiplied by current
or average frequency. This seems to produce oscillations of frequency
between min and max because, for example, a relatively small load can
easily saturate
Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and increases it only
if the load_freq is greater than up_threshold multiplied by current
or average frequency. This seems to produce oscillations of frequency
between min and max because, for example, a relatively small load can
easily saturate
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and increases it only
if the load_freq is greater than up_threshold multiplied by current
or average frequency. This seems to produce oscillations of frequency
between min and max
When you are doing a locally-originated truly CPU-bound task, race to idle
does make some sense. But I can think of a couple of caveats.
1) If you care about power consumption, you want to avoid super-power-hungry
turbo states, as you get less done per watt-hour than in some of the middle
Hi Borislav,
On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and increases it only
if the load_freq is greater than up_threshold multiplied by current
or average frequency. This
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Borislav,
On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and increases it only
if the load_freq is greater
86 matches
Mail list logo
