All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm: dts: exynos: add exynos5420 cpu capacity-dmips-mhz information
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:37:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170917073705.GC19716@kozik-book> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170830144120.9312-3-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:41:18PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> The following 'capacity-dmips-mhz' dt property values are used:
> 
> Cortex-A15: 1024, Cortex-A7: 539
> 
> They have been derived from the cpu_efficiency values:
> 
> Cortex-A15: 3891, Cortex-A7: 2048
> 
> by scaling them so that the Cortex-A15s (big cores) use 1024.
> 
> The cpu_efficiency values were originally derived from the "Big.LITTLE
> Processing with ARM Cortex™-A15 & Cortex-A7" white paper
> (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rdm34/big.LITTLE.pdf). Table 1 lists 1.9x
> (3891/2048) as the Cortex-A15 vs Cortex-A7 performance ratio for the
> Dhrystone benchmark.
> 
> The following platforms are affected once cpu-invariant accounting
> support is re-connected to the task scheduler:
> 
> arndale-octa, peach-pi, peach-pit, smdk5420
> 
> The patch has been tested on Samsung Chromebook 2 13" (peach-pi, Exynos
> 5800).
> 
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpu_capacity
> 1024
> 1024
> 1024
> 1024
> 389
> 389
> 389
> 389
> 
> The Cortex-A15 vs Cortex-A7 performance ratio is 1024/389 = 2.63.
> 
> The values derived with the 'cpu_efficiency/clock-frequency dt property'
> solution are:
> 
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpu_capacity
> 1535
> 1535
> 1535
> 1535
> 448
> 448
> 448
> 448
> 
> The Cortex-A15 vs Cortex-A7 performance ratio is 1535/448 = 3.43.
> 
> The discrepancy between 2.63 and 3.43 is due to the false assumption
> when using the 'cpu_efficiency/clock-frequency dt property' solution
> that the max cpu frequency of the little cpus is 1 GHZ and not 1.3 GHz.
> The Cortex-A7 cluster runs with a max cpu frequency of 1.3 GHZ whereas
> the 'clock-frequency' property value is set to 1 GHz.
> 
> 3.43/1.3 = 2.64
> 
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
> 1800000
> 1800000
> 1800000
> 1800000
> 1300000 <-- max cpu frequency of the Cortex-A7s (little cores)
> 1300000
> 1300000
> 1300000
> 
> Running another benchmark (single-threaded sysbench affine to the
> individual cpus) with performance cpufreq governor on the Samsung
> Chromebook 2 13" showed the following numbers:
> 
> $ for i in `seq 0 7`; do taskset -c $i sysbench --test=cpu
>   --num-threads=1 --max-time=10 run | grep "total number of events:";
>   done
> 
> total number of events: 1083
> total number of events: 1085
> total number of events: 1085
> total number of events: 1085
> total number of events: 454
> total number of events: 454
> total number of events: 454
> total number of events: 454
> 
> The Cortex-A15 vs Cortex-A7 performance ratio is 2.39, i.e. very close
> to the one derived from the Dhrystone based one of the "Big.LITTLE
> Processing with ARM Cortex™-A15 & Cortex-A7" white paper (2.63).
> 
> We don't aim for exact values for the cpu capacity values. Besides the
> CPI (Cycles Per Instruction), the instruction mix and whether the system
> runs cpu-bound or memory-bound has an impact on the cpu capacity values
> derived from these benchmark results.
> 
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-cpus.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 

Thanks, applied (with s/arm/ARM/ change in subject).

Best regards,
Krzysztof

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: krzk@kernel.org (Krzysztof Kozlowski)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] arm: dts: exynos: add exynos5420 cpu capacity-dmips-mhz information
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:37:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170917073705.GC19716@kozik-book> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170830144120.9312-3-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:41:18PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> The following 'capacity-dmips-mhz' dt property values are used:
> 
> Cortex-A15: 1024, Cortex-A7: 539
> 
> They have been derived from the cpu_efficiency values:
> 
> Cortex-A15: 3891, Cortex-A7: 2048
> 
> by scaling them so that the Cortex-A15s (big cores) use 1024.
> 
> The cpu_efficiency values were originally derived from the "Big.LITTLE
> Processing with ARM Cortex?-A15 & Cortex-A7" white paper
> (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rdm34/big.LITTLE.pdf). Table 1 lists 1.9x
> (3891/2048) as the Cortex-A15 vs Cortex-A7 performance ratio for the
> Dhrystone benchmark.
> 
> The following platforms are affected once cpu-invariant accounting
> support is re-connected to the task scheduler:
> 
> arndale-octa, peach-pi, peach-pit, smdk5420
> 
> The patch has been tested on Samsung Chromebook 2 13" (peach-pi, Exynos
> 5800).
> 
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpu_capacity
> 1024
> 1024
> 1024
> 1024
> 389
> 389
> 389
> 389
> 
> The Cortex-A15 vs Cortex-A7 performance ratio is 1024/389 = 2.63.
> 
> The values derived with the 'cpu_efficiency/clock-frequency dt property'
> solution are:
> 
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpu_capacity
> 1535
> 1535
> 1535
> 1535
> 448
> 448
> 448
> 448
> 
> The Cortex-A15 vs Cortex-A7 performance ratio is 1535/448 = 3.43.
> 
> The discrepancy between 2.63 and 3.43 is due to the false assumption
> when using the 'cpu_efficiency/clock-frequency dt property' solution
> that the max cpu frequency of the little cpus is 1 GHZ and not 1.3 GHz.
> The Cortex-A7 cluster runs with a max cpu frequency of 1.3 GHZ whereas
> the 'clock-frequency' property value is set to 1 GHz.
> 
> 3.43/1.3 = 2.64
> 
> $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
> 1800000
> 1800000
> 1800000
> 1800000
> 1300000 <-- max cpu frequency of the Cortex-A7s (little cores)
> 1300000
> 1300000
> 1300000
> 
> Running another benchmark (single-threaded sysbench affine to the
> individual cpus) with performance cpufreq governor on the Samsung
> Chromebook 2 13" showed the following numbers:
> 
> $ for i in `seq 0 7`; do taskset -c $i sysbench --test=cpu
>   --num-threads=1 --max-time=10 run | grep "total number of events:";
>   done
> 
> total number of events: 1083
> total number of events: 1085
> total number of events: 1085
> total number of events: 1085
> total number of events: 454
> total number of events: 454
> total number of events: 454
> total number of events: 454
> 
> The Cortex-A15 vs Cortex-A7 performance ratio is 2.39, i.e. very close
> to the one derived from the Dhrystone based one of the "Big.LITTLE
> Processing with ARM Cortex?-A15 & Cortex-A7" white paper (2.63).
> 
> We don't aim for exact values for the cpu capacity values. Besides the
> CPI (Cycles Per Instruction), the instruction mix and whether the system
> runs cpu-bound or memory-bound has an impact on the cpu capacity values
> derived from these benchmark results.
> 
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-cpus.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 

Thanks, applied (with s/arm/ARM/ change in subject).

Best regards,
Krzysztof

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-09-17  7:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-30 14:41 [PATCH 0/4] arm: remove cpu_efficiency Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 14:41 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 14:41 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm: topology: " Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 14:41   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-04  7:49   ` Vincent Guittot
2017-09-04  7:49     ` Vincent Guittot
2017-09-04  7:49     ` Vincent Guittot
2017-09-06 11:43     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-06 11:43       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-06 12:40       ` Vincent Guittot
2017-09-06 12:40         ` Vincent Guittot
2017-09-06 12:40         ` Vincent Guittot
2017-09-07 10:41         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-07 10:41           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 14:41 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm: dts: exynos: add exynos5420 cpu capacity-dmips-mhz information Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 14:41   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 14:41   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 20:26   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-08-30 20:26     ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-08-30 20:26     ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-08-31 10:36     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-31 10:36       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-03 19:56       ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-09-03 19:56         ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-09-06 11:47         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-06 11:47           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-06 11:47           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-17  7:37   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski [this message]
2017-09-17  7:37     ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-08-30 14:41 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm: dts: exynos: add exynos5422 " Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 14:41   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 14:41   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-17  7:37   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-09-17  7:37     ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-08-30 14:41 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm: dts: r8a7790: add " Dietmar Eggemann
2017-08-30 14:41   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-09-18  7:39   ` Simon Horman
2017-09-18  7:39     ` Simon Horman
2017-10-09 17:55     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-10-09 17:55       ` Dietmar Eggemann

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=20170917073705.GC19716@kozik-book \
    --to=krzk@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=kgene@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@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 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.