linux-kernel - Re: [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:22:19 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com,
	namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, len.brown@...el.com,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
	clark.williams@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
	keescook@...omium.org, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling

On 04/16/2013 07:12 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:50:22PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> For fairness and total threads consideration, powersaving cost quit
>> similar energy on kbuild benchmark, and even better.
>>
>> 	    17348.850		    27400.458		   15973.776
>> 	    13737.493		    18487.248		   12167.816
> 
> Yeah, but those lines don't look good - powersaving needs more energy
> than performance.
> 
> And what is even crazier is that fixed 1.2 GHz case. I'd guess in
> the normal case those cores are at triple the freq. - i.e. somewhere
> around 3-4 GHz. And yet, 1.2 GHz eats almost *double* the power than
> performance and powersaving.

yes, the max freq is 2.7 GHZ, plus boost.
> 
> So for the x=8 and maybe even the x=16 case we're basically better off
> with performance.
> 
> Or could it be that the power measurements are not really that accurate
> and those numbers above are not really correct?

testing has a little variation, but the power data is quite accurate. I
may change to packing tasks per cpu capacity than current cpu weight.
that should has better power efficient value.

> 
> Hmm.
> 


-- 
Thanks Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/