From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Cc: "'Linux PM list'" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"'Srinivas Pandruvada'" <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
"'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"'Viresh Kumar'" <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
"'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"'Vincent Guittot'" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"'Morten Rasmussen'" <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
"'Juri Lelli'" <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
"'Dietmar Eggemann'" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
"'Steve Muckle'" <smuckle@linaro.org>,
"'Doug Smythies'" <doug.smythies@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 0/4] cpufreq / sched: iowait boost in intel_pstate and schedutil
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 01:54:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <21373989.WOAuNhKX1x@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000401d206c4$ad0db8c0$07292a40$@net>
On Sunday, September 04, 2016 08:54:49 AM Doug Smythies wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 2016.09.02 17:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks
> > ago. Since the first two patches from that series have been reworked and
> > are in linux-next now, I've rebased this series on top of my linux-next
> > branch.
> >
> > In addition to that I took the Doug's feedback into account in the
> > intel_pstate patches [2-3/4].
>
> You got ahead of me a little.
> Recall the suggestion for the addition of some filtering was based
> on energy savings. And further that it might make sense to use
> average pstate as input to the filter (your new patch 3 of 4).
> In my testing (of the old patch set) I have been finding that some
> of those energy savings are being given back by the average pstate
> method, putting its value added into question.
>
> Switching to the new patch set, I made two kernels (based on 4.8-rc4
> + your pre-requisite 2 patches):
> rfc4: has all 4 patches.
> rfc2: has patches 1, 2, 4. (does not have the average pstate change)
>
> Using my SpecPower simulator test at 20% load I get:
>
> Unpatched (reference): ~5905 Joules
> rfc4: ~ 6232 Joules (+5.5%)
> rfc2: ~ 6075 Joules (+2.9%)
> Old rfc, no filter (restated): ~7197 Joules (+21.9%)
> Old rfc + old iir filter V2: ~5967 Joules (+1%)
> Old rfc + old ave pstate method: ~6275 Joules (+6.3%)
>
> Srinivas was getting considerably different, but still
> encouraging, numbers on the real SpecPower test beds.
>
> I would like to suggest/ask that those real SpecPower tests be done
> first so as to decide a preferred way forward. I'll also re-do my
> simulator tests over a longer time period and at some other loads
> (currently 20% is hard coded).
The reason I made patch [3/4] separate was to make it easier to test without
that change. That is, apply [1-2/4] and see what difference it makes.
I'd like to see the results from that if poss.
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-04 23:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-04 15:54 Doug Smythies
2016-09-04 23:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2016-09-07 15:25 ` Doug Smythies
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-09-03 0:56 Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-09-08 0:22 ` Steve Muckle
2016-09-08 0:35 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2016-09-08 0:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-09-08 0:49 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2016-09-08 1:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-09-08 15:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-09-08 17:30 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2016-09-08 19:26 ` Steve Muckle
2016-09-08 19:49 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2016-09-08 0:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=21373989.WOAuNhKX1x@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=Juri.Lelli@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=doug.smythies@gmail.com \
--cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=smuckle@linaro.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®