linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:42:17 +0000 (UTC)
From:	nitin <nitinlinuxdev@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency

Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw <at> sisk.pl> writes:

> 
> On Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:14:49 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Can you possibly prepare a graph showing both the execution time
> > > and energy consumption for several different loop durations in 
your
> > > program (let's keep the 5000 us sleep for now), including 
multiples of
> > > sampling_rate as well as some other durations?
> > 
> > Judgind by the times in C0 one of the cores spent, this small 
program
> > is single-threaded and is a microbenchmark.
> 
> Yes, it is single-threaded, but that can be easily addressed by 
running
> multiple copies of it in parallel. 
> 
> And yes, it is a microbenchmark, ->
> 
> > And you know how optimizing against a microbenchmark doesn't really 
make
> > a lot of sense.
> 
> -> but this is more about finding possible issues that about 
optimizing.
> 
> I'm regarding this change as a substantial code simplification in the 
first
> place, both in terms of conceptual complexity and the actual code 
size, so I'd
> like to know what is *likely* to be affected by it (be it a 
microbenchmark or
> whatever).
> 
> IOW, try to play a devil's advocate and find something that get's 
worse after
> applying these changes.  If we can't find anything like that, there 
won't be
> any reason not to apply them.
> 
> > I wonder if lmbench or aim9 or whatever would make more sense to try 
here...
> 
> I think we'll need to try them too.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 

Hi, I am working on integrating the cpufreq interactive governor with 
scheduler. We would like to verify our results using aim9 benchmark on 
Linux v3.10.28 over Android v4.4.4. Is there a patch available for 
porting aim9 benchmark tools on Android?
Right now I am unable to compile it using the gcc provided with Android 
NDK toolchain in the arm-linux-androideabi-4.8.

Thanks,
Nitin


--
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/