linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v6 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks

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:	Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:33:26 -0800
From:	"Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@...us.net>
To:	"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"'Srinivas Pandruvada'" <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	"'Linux PM list'" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"'Viresh Kumar'" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"'Juri Lelli'" <juri.lelli@....com>,
	"'Steve Muckle'" <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	"'Thomas Gleixner'" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks

On 2016.02.12 05:39 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net> wrote:
>> On 2016.02.11 14:50 Doug Smythies wrote:
>>> On 2016.02.10 22:03 Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 03:11:43 PM Doug Smythies wrote:
>>
>>>>> My test computer has an older model i7 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz)
>>> Thanks Doug. If you have specific workloads, please compare performance.
>>
>>> My work so far has been testing functionality, with unrealistic workloads specifically
>>> designed to exaggerate issues, in this case the duration problem.
>>>
>>> I'll look at some real world workload scenarios.
>>
>> Turbostat used for package power, starts before Phoronix tests starts,
>> and ends after Phoronix test ends.
>>
>> Control Sample: Kernel 4.5-rc3:
>> Phoronix ffmpeg: turbostat 180 Sec. 12.07 Sec. Ave. 27.14 Watts.
>> Phoronix apache: turbostat 200 Sec. 19797.0 R.P.S. Ave. 34.01 Watts.
>> Phoronix kernel: turbostat 180 Sec. 139.93 Sec. 49.09 Watts.
>> Phoronix Postmark (Disk Test): turbostat 200 Sec. 5813 T.P.S. Ave. 21.33 Watts.
>>
>> Kernel 4.5-rc3 + RJW 3 patch set version 7:
>> Phoronix ffmpeg: turbostat 180 Sec. 11.67 Sec. Ave. 27.35 Watts.
>> Phoronix apache: turbostat 200 Sec. 19430.7 R.P.S. Ave. 34.18 Watts.
>> Phoronix kernel: turbostat 180 Sec. 139.81 Sec. 48.80 Watts.
>> Phoronix Postmark (Disk Test): turbostat 200 Sec. 5683 T.P.S. Ave. 22.41 Watts.

> Thanks for the results!
>
> The Postmark result is somewhat below expectations (especially with
> respect to the energy consumption), but we should be able to improve
> that by using the util numbers intelligently.
>
> Do you have full turbostat reports from those runs by any chance?  I'm
> wondering what happens to the idle state residencies, for example.

I did not keep the turbostat output, however it is easy enough to
re-do the tests. I'll send you the stuff off-list, and copy
Srinivas.

By the way, there is an anomaly in my 2 hour idle data (v7), where
CPU 7 should have had sample passes through the intel_pstate driver.
It did not, rather hitting the 4 second time limit instead.
10 occurrences in 7200 seconds. I sent you an off-list html format
e-mail with more details. There may be other anomalies I didn't
find yet.

... Doug