Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752875AbbBWQpJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:45:09 -0500
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:54479 "EHLO plane.gmane.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752720AbbBWQpH (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:45:07 -0500
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: nitin <nitinlinuxdev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:42:17 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <loom.20150223T171125-731@post.gmane.org>
References: <q46r5iepl3sunqe5eemv66hk.1370694869222@email.android.com> <7661669.NhG4BEI8zO@vostro.rjw.lan> <20130609211449.GA5517@pd.tnic> <2414473.nDRDW2UoEh@vostro.rjw.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-Loom-IP: 122.178.231.209 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/40.0.2214.115 Safari/537.36)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2165
Lines: 62

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 durations in 
your
> > > program (let's keep the 5000 us sleep for now), including 
multiples of
> > > sampling_rate as well as some other durations?
> > 
> > Judgind by the times in C0 one of the cores spent, this small 
program
> > is single-threaded and is a microbenchmark.
> 
> Yes, it is single-threaded, but that can be easily addressed by 
running
> multiple copies of it in parallel. 
> 
> And yes, it is a microbenchmark, ->
> 
> > And you know how optimizing against a microbenchmark doesn't really 
make
> > a lot of sense.
> 
> -> but this is more about finding possible issues that about 
optimizing.
> 
> I'm regarding this change as a substantial code simplification in the 
first
> place, both in terms of conceptual complexity and the actual code 
size, so I'd
> like to know what is *likely* to be affected by it (be it a 
microbenchmark or
> whatever).
> 
> IOW, try to play a devil's advocate and find something that get's 
worse after
> applying these changes.  If we can't find anything like that, there 
won't be
> any reason not to apply them.
> 
> > I wonder if lmbench or aim9 or whatever would make more sense to try 
here...
> 
> I think we'll need to try them too.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 

Hi, I am working on integrating the cpufreq interactive governor with 
scheduler. We would like to verify our results using aim9 benchmark on 
Linux v3.10.28 over Android v4.4.4. Is there a patch available for 
porting aim9 benchmark tools on Android?
Right now I am unable to compile it using the gcc provided with Android 
NDK toolchain in the arm-linux-androideabi-4.8.

Thanks,
Nitin


--
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/