From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:29:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160119142933.GF8573@e106622-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160119112323.GB8573@e106622-lin>
On 19/01/16 11:23, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Catalin,
>
> On 19/01/16 10:59, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:42:58PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On 18 January 2016 at 17:30, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > On 18/01/16 17:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > >> On 18 January 2016 at 16:13, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On 15/01/16 11:50, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > > >> >> On 01/08/2016 06:09 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Two questions:
> >
> > 1. How is the boot time affected by the benchmark?
> > 2. How is the boot time affected by considering all the CPUs the same?
> >
> > My preference is for DT and sysfs (especially useful for
> > development/tuning) but I'm not opposed to a boot-time benchmark if
> > people insist on it. If the answer to point 2 is "insignificant", we
> > could as well defer the capacity setting to user space (sysfs).
> >
>
> Given that we are not targeting boot time with this, but rather better
> performance afterwards, I don't expect significant differences; but,
> I'll get numbers :).
>
I've got some boot time numbers on TC2 and Juno based on timestamps.
They are of course not accurate and maybe not so representative of
products, but I guess still ballpark right.
I'm generally seeing ~1sec increase in boot time for 1 and practically
no difference for 2 (even after having added patches that provide
runtime performance improvements).
Best,
- Juri
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: juri.lelli@arm.com (Juri Lelli)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:29:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160119142933.GF8573@e106622-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160119112323.GB8573@e106622-lin>
On 19/01/16 11:23, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Catalin,
>
> On 19/01/16 10:59, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:42:58PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On 18 January 2016 at 17:30, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > On 18/01/16 17:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > >> On 18 January 2016 at 16:13, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On 15/01/16 11:50, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > > >> >> On 01/08/2016 06:09 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Two questions:
> >
> > 1. How is the boot time affected by the benchmark?
> > 2. How is the boot time affected by considering all the CPUs the same?
> >
> > My preference is for DT and sysfs (especially useful for
> > development/tuning) but I'm not opposed to a boot-time benchmark if
> > people insist on it. If the answer to point 2 is "insignificant", we
> > could as well defer the capacity setting to user space (sysfs).
> >
>
> Given that we are not targeting boot time with this, but rather better
> performance afterwards, I don't expect significant differences; but,
> I'll get numbers :).
>
I've got some boot time numbers on TC2 and Juno based on timestamps.
They are of course not accurate and maybe not so representative of
products, but I guess still ballpark right.
I'm generally seeing ~1sec increase in boot time for 1 and practically
no difference for 2 (even after having added patches that provide
runtime performance improvements).
Best,
- Juri
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-19 14:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-08 14:09 [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] ARM: initialize cpu_scale to its default Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] drivers/cpufreq: implement init_cpu_capacity_default() Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] arm: Enable dynamic CPU capacity initialization Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: " Juri Lelli
2016-01-08 14:09 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-15 18:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems Mark Brown
2016-01-15 18:01 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-18 15:01 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 15:01 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-15 19:50 ` Steve Muckle
2016-01-15 19:50 ` Steve Muckle
2016-01-18 15:13 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 15:13 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 16:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-01-18 16:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-01-18 16:30 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 16:30 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 16:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-01-18 16:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-01-18 17:08 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 17:08 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 17:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-01-18 17:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-01-19 10:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-01-19 10:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-01-19 11:23 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-19 11:23 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-19 14:29 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2016-01-19 14:29 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-19 19:48 ` Steve Muckle
2016-01-19 19:48 ` Steve Muckle
2016-01-19 21:10 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-19 21:10 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-20 10:22 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-20 10:22 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18 19:25 ` Steve Muckle
2016-01-18 19:25 ` Steve Muckle
2016-01-19 15:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-19 15:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-19 17:50 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-19 17:50 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-20 10:25 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-20 10:25 ` Juri Lelli
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=20160119142933.GF8573@e106622-lin \
--to=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=steve.muckle@linaro.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.