From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752286AbcBLRdi (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:33:38 -0500 Received: from cmta16.telus.net ([209.171.16.89]:35608 "EHLO cmta16.telus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751505AbcBLRd3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:33:29 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=NNsogBOg c=1 sm=2 tr=0 a=zJWegnE7BH9C0Gl4FFgQyA==:117 a=zJWegnE7BH9C0Gl4FFgQyA==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=Pyq9K9CWowscuQLKlpiwfMBGOR0=:19 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=aatUQebYAAAA:8 a=_pzQI3nEPbFbNxFU_ucA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Telus-Outbound-IP: 173.180.45.4 From: "Doug Smythies" To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" Cc: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" , "'Srinivas Pandruvada'" , "'Linux PM list'" , "'Ingo Molnar'" , "'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" , "'Peter Zijlstra'" , "'Viresh Kumar'" , "'Juri Lelli'" , "'Steve Muckle'" , "'Thomas Gleixner'" References: <3071836.JbNxX8hU6x@vostro.rjw.lan> <2111826.yKEUOzphHC@vostro.rjw.lan> <008201d16458$69b2a4f0$3d17eed0$@net> <7442347.PCmPlrAvBe@vostro.rjw.lan> <002101d1651e$8ff027c0$afd07740$@net> <002601d16566$88455610$98d00230$@net> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:33:26 -0800 Message-ID: <001601d165bb$7bf4de30$73de9a90$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdFlmstDezG9JEuaSJOzzhIFfWN1tAAHjb6w Content-Language: en-ca Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2016.02.12 05:39 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Doug Smythies wrote: >> On 2016.02.11 14:50 Doug Smythies wrote: >>> On 2016.02.10 22:03 Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 03:11:43 PM Doug Smythies wrote: >> >>>>> My test computer has an older model i7 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz) >>> Thanks Doug. If you have specific workloads, please compare performance. >> >>> My work so far has been testing functionality, with unrealistic workloads specifically >>> designed to exaggerate issues, in this case the duration problem. >>> >>> I'll look at some real world workload scenarios. >> >> Turbostat used for package power, starts before Phoronix tests starts, >> and ends after Phoronix test ends. >> >> Control Sample: Kernel 4.5-rc3: >> Phoronix ffmpeg: turbostat 180 Sec. 12.07 Sec. Ave. 27.14 Watts. >> Phoronix apache: turbostat 200 Sec. 19797.0 R.P.S. Ave. 34.01 Watts. >> Phoronix kernel: turbostat 180 Sec. 139.93 Sec. 49.09 Watts. >> Phoronix Postmark (Disk Test): turbostat 200 Sec. 5813 T.P.S. Ave. 21.33 Watts. >> >> Kernel 4.5-rc3 + RJW 3 patch set version 7: >> Phoronix ffmpeg: turbostat 180 Sec. 11.67 Sec. Ave. 27.35 Watts. >> Phoronix apache: turbostat 200 Sec. 19430.7 R.P.S. Ave. 34.18 Watts. >> Phoronix kernel: turbostat 180 Sec. 139.81 Sec. 48.80 Watts. >> Phoronix Postmark (Disk Test): turbostat 200 Sec. 5683 T.P.S. Ave. 22.41 Watts. > Thanks for the results! > > The Postmark result is somewhat below expectations (especially with > respect to the energy consumption), but we should be able to improve > that by using the util numbers intelligently. > > Do you have full turbostat reports from those runs by any chance? I'm > wondering what happens to the idle state residencies, for example. I did not keep the turbostat output, however it is easy enough to re-do the tests. I'll send you the stuff off-list, and copy Srinivas. By the way, there is an anomaly in my 2 hour idle data (v7), where CPU 7 should have had sample passes through the intel_pstate driver. It did not, rather hitting the 4 second time limit instead. 10 occurrences in 7200 seconds. I sent you an off-list html format e-mail with more details. There may be other anomalies I didn't find yet. ... Doug