Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759344Ab3FMWE3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:04:29 -0400 Received: from sema.semaphore.gr ([78.46.194.137]:42414 "EHLO sema.semaphore.gr" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756798Ab3FMWE1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:04:27 -0400 Message-ID: <51BA41E9.8020004@semaphore.gr> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:04:25 +0300 From: Stratos Karafotis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Borislav Petkov , Viresh Kumar , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency References: <7661669.NhG4BEI8zO@vostro.rjw.lan> <51B64BC6.6040400@semaphore.gr> <16929930.1G36b4NkSe@vostro.rjw.lan> <51BA380A.1040009@semaphore.gr> <20130613214007.GA32127@pd.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20130613214007.GA32127@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: 1705 Lines: 37 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&usp=sharing >> >> Each test was running for 10sec. >> Total execution time with and without the patch was almost identical, which is >> expected since the tests in aim9 run for a specific period. >> The energy during the test run was increased by 0.43% with the patch. >> The performance was increased by 1.25% (average) with this patch. > > 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 don't find any serious perf/power regressions with > this patch, I'd say it is worth applying even solely for the code > simplification it brings. > Although, I'm not sure about the unexpected improvement, I confirm this (run again the test). Also, there is important improvement in Directory searches (+5.79%), Disk Copies (+1.19%), shell scripts (1.20%, 1.51%, 2.38%) and tcp/udp tests (3.62%, 1.41%). 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 longer to min frequency. Thanks, Stratos -- 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/