From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F821C43219 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:10:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D809321670 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="fjSLcF2s" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726477AbfD3QKQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:10:16 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f196.google.com ([209.85.160.196]:45208 "EHLO mail-qt1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725942AbfD3QKO (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:10:14 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f196.google.com with SMTP id b3so16760662qtc.12 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:10:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8AN6ep9mNdUa7gnX6C5esMrIuerPErujN9+xJ7wR15A=; b=fjSLcF2sGref4PQME0CxL6FXUxSHxI28O/+/MZTPx/Fu5aPacVhPp4PR1KYQw0DD27 DQIZCKP0TUbdu8JkvqsL9RNCmMAwcTTF4ptsC3MCiJMPEAOAvWuIlrqfP/Aaa4MTxLQn TRVEj8lm2a5XsrL17oz96OVcZ1xSHW+YixU/9WUhonNAuieqfxdlByL6GpxSJuMIioAc iDkWqaxLClscNUIktZhG0dnY2g9oHw+0J7Zka9aHU/Ujkr9I9sWP0YyPvDDxqTcYtqY7 8119U5/DDnuMi4teT8Aguh2v7UKwKI9DvSGt/f5Q1cN8r0oQIUwBVX9+OJckLnzo68FD Gd3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8AN6ep9mNdUa7gnX6C5esMrIuerPErujN9+xJ7wR15A=; b=br0i8r9wiOFgSREBpqftluDKO0zN1868vcdY0IqKnv0J3YAPC7tMuFsTm2UP2Ogzrb SDdYvHH05BYYlsHIz/Dvxb0su7yzYwiyH6hDWM+n6DwyO2vdZ2LPcfxtdQVC7RNd6wrU bnRbdtRtQHikYorUcnd9Bi70FjYpKkAICr+dFctnUCY2JM6fWxWZWT39jcDSb/mvlcai NNSFilLl9qmE//TwsQNbgLZ34w3b5Kn0ihZmkKkqNCO3sX97Ef0Kxv3YvcBme0yoLY3W PBvYfSE5mPtvFnWJMZAB3gMIeHtyRcoIlaTTwQ8sZgsnoYY+vtFT7dSE1flDZ2oyIyYz Thyg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW205RmaIZNRIsdw6E/CCYQnsCWWM+moou+mH6T4cUQFsk21dDm f2wQ7ef+gJLE7QHnqhMtYaSw8w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwhJ/Fy7Be3oirq7ksoxFEELVfHGhB67HJK1DrcE+ycA4rYxlf0yTTMN3yx6Jr5wImLa48kLQ== X-Received: by 2002:aed:3681:: with SMTP id f1mr7242941qtb.240.1556640612995; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.169] (pool-71-255-245-97.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.255.245.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a124sm3677787qkd.3.2019.04.30.09.10.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] Introduce Thermal Pressure To: Ionela Voinescu , mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, rui.zhang@intel.com References: <1555443521-579-1-git-send-email-thara.gopinath@linaro.org> <8eed9601-8bbb-9f62-f786-f08bd4a72907@arm.com> <8371be92-635b-1979-b1cd-6985ecb4811f@arm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amit.kachhap@gmail.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, javi.merino@kernel.org, edubezval@gmail.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com From: Thara Gopinath Message-ID: <5CC87362.6080307@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:10:10 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8371be92-635b-1979-b1cd-6985ecb4811f@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/30/2019 10:39 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Hi Thara, > > On 29/04/2019 14:29, Ionela Voinescu wrote: >> Hi Thara, >> >>> >>> Hackbench: (1 group , 30000 loops, 10 runs) >>> Result Standard Deviation >>> (Time Secs) (% of mean) >>> >>> No Thermal Pressure 10.21 7.99% >>> >>> Instantaneous thermal pressure 10.16 5.36% >>> >>> Thermal Pressure Averaging >>> using PELT fmwk 9.88 3.94% >>> >>> Thermal Pressure Averaging >>> non-PELT Algo. Decay : 500 ms 9.94 4.59% >>> >>> Thermal Pressure Averaging >>> non-PELT Algo. Decay : 250 ms 7.52 5.42% >>> >>> Thermal Pressure Averaging >>> non-PELT Algo. Decay : 125 ms 9.87 3.94% >>> >>> >> >> I'm trying your patches on my Hikey960 and I'm getting different results >> than the ones here. >> >> I'm running with the step-wise governor, enabled only on the big cores. >> The decay period is set to 250ms. >> >> The result for hackbench is: >> >> # ./hackbench -g 1 -l 30000 >> Running in process mode with 1 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 40 tasks) >> Each sender will pass 30000 messages of 100 bytes >> Time: 20.756 >> >> During the run I see the little cores running at maximum frequency >> (1.84GHz) while the big cores run mostly at 1.8GHz, only sometimes capped >> at 1.42GHz. There should not be any capacity inversion. >> The temperature is kept around 75 degrees (73 to 77 degrees). >> >> I don't have any kind of active cooling (no fans on the board), only a >> heatsink on the SoC. >> >> But as you see my results(~20s) are very far from the 7-10s in your >> results. >> >> Do you see anything wrong with this process? Can you give me more >> details on your setup that I can use to test on my board? >> > > I've found that my poor results above were due to debug options > mistakenly left enabled in the defconfig. Sorry about that! > > After cleaning it up I'm getting results around 5.6s for this test case. > I've run 50 iterations for each test, with 90s cool down period between > them. > > > Hackbench: (1 group , 30000 loops, 50 runs) > Result Standard Deviation > (Time Secs) (% of mean) > > No Thermal Pressure(step_wise) 5.644 7.760% > No Thermal Pressure(IPA) 5.677 9.062% > > Thermal Pressure Averaging > non-PELT Algo. Decay : 250 ms 5.627 5.593% > (step-wise, bigs capped only) > > Thermal Pressure Averaging > non-PELT Algo. Decay : 250 ms 5.690 3.738% > (IPA) > > All of the results above are within 1.1% difference with a > significantly higher standard deviation. Hi Ionela, I have replied to your original emails without seeing this one. So, interesting results. I see IPA is worse off (Slightly) than step wise in both thermal pressure and non-thermal pressure scenarios. Did you try 500 ms decay period by any chance? > > I wanted to run this initially to validate my setup and understand > if there is any conclusion we can draw from a test like this, that > floods the CPUs with tasks. Looking over the traces, the tasks are > running almost back to back, trying to use all available resources, > on all the CPUs. > Therefore, I doubt that there could be better decisions that could be > made, knowing about thermal pressure, for this usecase. > > I'll try next some capacity inversion usecase and post the results when > they are ready. Sure. let me know if I can help. Regards Thara > > Hope it helps, > Ionela. > > >> Thank you, >> Ionela. >> -- Regards Thara