Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753938AbYL3R21 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:28:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752249AbYL3R2R (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:28:17 -0500 Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.6]:33969 "EHLO e28smtp06.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752255AbYL3R2Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:28:16 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:01:10 +0530 From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan To: MinChan Kim , Linux Kernel , Suresh B Siddha , Venkatesh Pallipadi , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Dipankar Sarma , Vatsa , Gautham R Shenoy , Andi Kleen , David Collier-Brown , Tim Connors , Max Krasnyansky , Gregory Haskins , Pavel Machek , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n Message-ID: <20081230173110.GA5159@dirshya.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20081218175313.29812.4781.stgit@drishya.in.ibm.com> <28c262360812291543ia322a13g6af854a685ce7632@mail.gmail.com> <20081230024819.GA23301@balbir.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081230024819.GA23301@balbir.in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2609 Lines: 71 * Balbir Singh [2008-12-30 08:18:19]: > * MinChan Kim [2008-12-30 08:43:58]: > > > Hi, Vaidyanathan. > > It's very late reponse. :( > > > > > Results: > > > -------- > > > > > > Basic functionality of the code has not changed and the power vs > > > performance benefits for kernbench are similar to the ones posted > > > earlier. > > > > > > KERNBENCH Runs: make -j4 on a x86 8 core, dual socket quad core cpu > > > package system > > > > > > SchedMC Run Time Package Idle Energy Power > > > 0 81.68 52.83% 54.71% 1.00x J 1.00y W > > > 1 80.70 36.62% 70.11% 0.95x J 0.96y W > > > 2 74.95 19.53% 85.92% 0.90x J 0.98y W > > > > > > The results are marginally better than the previous version of the > > > patch series which could be within the test variation. > > > > > > Please feel free to test, and let me know your comments and feedback. > > > I will post more experimental results with various benchmarks. > > > > Your result is very interesting. > > level 2 is more fast and efficient of power. > > > > What's major contributor to use less time in level 2? > > I think it's cache bounce is less time than old. > > Is right ? > > > > Yes, correct > > > I want to test SCHED_MC but I don't know what you use to benchmark about power. > > How do I get the data about 'Package, Idle, Energy, Power'? > > > > Note, it is Package Idle (for both packages), it is a x86-64 8 core, > dual socket, quad core box. It is not Package, Idle. > > For Energy and Power you need a means of measuring power like a meter. > Hi MinChan, Thank you for your interest in sched_mc power saving feature. As Balbir has mentioned, you will need a power measurement infrastructure like an external power meter. Laptops have battery discharge rate measurement that is a good approximation for power consumption. But that is not helpful to test sched_mc since we would need a multi-socket multi core system to get power saving benefit from the enhancements. The 'package idle' information comes from /proc/stat by adding up the idle times from various logical CPUs belonging to a single physical package. All logical CPUs belonging to a single physical package can be identified from /proc/cpuinfo or /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu/topology/physical_package_id --Vaidy -- 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/