Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-31940-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:04:44 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Ashay Jaiswal <quic_ashayj@quicinc.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>,
	Rick Yiu <rickyiu@google.com>, Chung-Kai Mei <chungkai@google.com>,
	quic_anshar@quicinc.com, quic_atulpant@quicinc.com,
	quic_shashim@quicinc.com, quic_rgottimu@quicinc.com,
	quic_adharmap@quicinc.com, quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com,
	quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] sched/pelt: Introduce PELT multiplier
Message-ID: <20240121000444.ghue2miejmiair6l@airbuntu>
References: <20231208002342.367117-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <20231208002342.367117-9-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <a561029e-993d-726d-18ce-0bc014e6533c@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a561029e-993d-726d-18ce-0bc014e6533c@quicinc.com>

Hi Ashay

On 01/20/24 13:22, Ashay Jaiswal wrote:
> Hello Qais Yousef,
> 
> We ran few benchmarks with PELT multiplier patch on a Snapdragon 8Gen2
> based internal Android device and we are observing significant
> improvements with PELT8 configuration compared to PELT32.
> 
> Following are some of the benchmark results with PELT32 and PELT8
> configuration:
> 
> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
> | Test case                       |     PELT32     |     PELT8      |
> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
> |                 |    Overall    |     711543     |     971275     |
> |                 +---------------+----------------+----------------+
> |                 |    CPU        |     193704     |     224378     |
> |                 +---------------+----------------+----------------+
> |ANTUTU V9.3.9    |    GPU        |     284650     |     424774     |
> |                 +---------------+----------------+----------------+
> |                 |    MEM        |     125207     |     160548     |
> |                 +---------------+----------------+----------------+
> |                 |    UX         |     107982     |     161575     |
> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
> |                 |   Single core |     1170       |     1268       |
> |GeekBench V5.4.4 +---------------+----------------+----------------+
> |                 |   Multi core  |     2530       |     3797       |
> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
> |                 |    Twitter    |     >50 Janks  |     0          |
> |     SCROLL      +---------------+----------------+----------------+
> |                 |    Contacts   |     >30 Janks  |     0          |
> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
> 
> Please let us know if you need any support with running any further
> workloads for PELT32/PELT8 experiments, we can help with running the
> experiments.

Thanks a lot for the test results. Was this tried with this patch alone or
the whole series applied?

Have you tried to tweak each policy response_time_ms introduced in patch
7 instead? With the series applied, boot with PELT8, record the response time
values for each policy, then boot back again to PELT32 and use those values.
Does this produce similar results?

You didn't share power numbers which I assume the perf gains are more important
than the power cost for you.


Thanks!

--
Qais Yousef