From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com,
namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com,
rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, jkosina@suse.cz,
clark.williams@gmail.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
keescook@chromium.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:28:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <516A0652.8040505@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130412162348.GE2368@pd.tnic>
On 04/13/2013 12:23 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 04:46:50PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> > Thanks a lot for comments, Len!
> AFAICT, you kinda forgot to answer his most important question:
>
>> > These numbers suggest that this patch series simultaneously
>> > has a negative impact on performance and energy required
>> > to retire the workload. Why do it?
Even some scenario the total energy cost more, at least the avg watts
dropped in that scenarios. Len said he has low p-state which can work
there. but that's is different. I had sent some data in another email
list to show the difference:
The following is 2 times kbuild testing result for 3 kinds condiation on
SNB EP box, the middle column is the lowest p-state testing result, we
can see, it has the lowest power consumption, also has the lowest
performance/watts value.
At least for kbuild benchmark, powersaving policy has the best
compromise on powersaving and power efficient. Further more, due to cpu
boost feature, it has better performance in some scenarios.
powersaving + ondemand userspace + fixed 1.2GHz performance+ondemand
x = 8 231.318 /75 57 165.063 /166 36 253.552 /63 62
x = 16 280.357 /49 72 174.408 /106 54 296.776 /41 82
x = 32 325.206 /34 90 178.675 /90 62 314.153 /37 86
x = 8 233.623 /74 57 164.507 /168 36 254.775 /65 60
x = 16 272.54 /38 96 174.364 /106 54 297.731 /42 79
x = 32 320.758 /34 91 177.917 /91 61 317.875 /35 89
x = 64 326.837 /33 92 179.037 /90 62 320.615 /36 86
--
Thanks
Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-14 1:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-04 2:00 [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 01/21] Revert "sched: Introduce temporary FAIR_GROUP_SCHED dependency for load-tracking" Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 02/21] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new forked task Alex Shi
2013-05-06 3:24 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 03/21] sched: add sched balance policies in kernel Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 04/21] sched: add sysfs interface for sched_balance_policy selection Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 05/21] sched: log the cpu utilization at rq Alex Shi
2013-05-06 3:26 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-05-06 5:22 ` Alex Shi
2013-05-06 12:03 ` Phil Carmody
2013-05-06 12:35 ` Alex Shi
2013-05-06 21:19 ` Paul Turner
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 06/21] sched: add new sg/sd_lb_stats fields for incoming fork/exec/wake balancing Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 07/21] sched: move sg/sd_lb_stats struct ahead Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 08/21] sched: scale_rt_power rename and meaning change Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 09/21] sched: get rq potential maximum utilization Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 10/21] sched: add power aware scheduling in fork/exec/wake Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 11/21] sched: add sched_burst_threshold_ns as wakeup burst indicator Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 12/21] sched: using avg_idle to detect bursty wakeup Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 13/21] sched: packing transitory tasks in wakeup power balancing Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 14/21] sched: add power/performance balance allow flag Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 15/21] sched: pull all tasks from source group Alex Shi
2013-04-04 5:59 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-04-06 11:49 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 16/21] sched: no balance for prefer_sibling in power scheduling Alex Shi
2013-05-06 3:26 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 17/21] sched: add new members of sd_lb_stats Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:00 ` [patch v7 18/21] sched: power aware load balance Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:01 ` [patch v7 19/21] sched: lazy power balance Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:01 ` [patch v7 20/21] sched: don't do power balance on share cpu power domain Alex Shi
2013-04-08 3:17 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-08 3:25 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-08 4:19 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-04 2:01 ` [patch v7 21/21] sched: make sure select_tas_rq_fair get a cpu Alex Shi
2013-04-11 21:02 ` [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling Len Brown
2013-04-12 8:46 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-12 16:23 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-04-12 16:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-04-12 17:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-04-14 1:36 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-17 21:53 ` Len Brown
2013-04-18 1:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-04-26 15:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-04-30 5:16 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-04-30 8:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-04-30 8:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-30 9:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-04-30 9:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-04-30 9:56 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-05-17 8:06 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-05-20 1:01 ` Alex Shi
2013-05-20 2:30 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-14 1:28 ` Alex Shi [this message]
2013-04-14 5:10 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-14 15:59 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-04-15 6:04 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-15 6:16 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-15 9:52 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-04-15 13:50 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-15 23:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-04-16 0:22 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-16 10:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-04-17 1:18 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-17 7:38 ` Borislav Petkov
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=516A0652.8040505@intel.com \
--to=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=clark.williams@gmail.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).