Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935125Ab3DPAXL (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:23:11 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:40555 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753874Ab3DPAXJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:23:09 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,479,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="227548343" Message-ID: <516C99BB.30309@intel.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:22:19 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov CC: Len Brown , mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, jkosina@suse.cz, clark.williams@gmail.com, tony.luck@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com, Linux PM list Subject: Re: [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling References: <1365040862-8390-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <516724F5.20504@kernel.org> <5167C9FA.8050406@intel.com> <20130412162348.GE2368@pd.tnic> <516A0652.8040505@intel.com> <20130414155925.GC20547@pd.tnic> <516B9859.70004@intel.com> <516B9B57.3030902@intel.com> <20130415095203.GA26524@pd.tnic> <516C059E.20800@intel.com> <20130415231206.GE12144@pd.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20130415231206.GE12144@pd.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1402 Lines: 40 On 04/16/2013 07:12 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:50:22PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> For fairness and total threads consideration, powersaving cost quit >> similar energy on kbuild benchmark, and even better. >> >> 17348.850 27400.458 15973.776 >> 13737.493 18487.248 12167.816 > > Yeah, but those lines don't look good - powersaving needs more energy > than performance. > > And what is even crazier is that fixed 1.2 GHz case. I'd guess in > the normal case those cores are at triple the freq. - i.e. somewhere > around 3-4 GHz. And yet, 1.2 GHz eats almost *double* the power than > performance and powersaving. yes, the max freq is 2.7 GHZ, plus boost. > > So for the x=8 and maybe even the x=16 case we're basically better off > with performance. > > Or could it be that the power measurements are not really that accurate > and those numbers above are not really correct? testing has a little variation, but the power data is quite accurate. I may change to packing tasks per cpu capacity than current cpu weight. that should has better power efficient value. > > Hmm. > -- Thanks Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/