[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19700101001343.GA1440@ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1970 01:13:43 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
David Collier-Brown <davecb@....com>,
Tim Connors <tconnors@...ro.swin.edu.au>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/7] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
> Results:
> --------
>
> Basic functionality of the code has not changed and the power vs
> performance benefits for kernbench are similar to the ones posted
> earlier.
>
> KERNBENCH Runs: make -j4 on a x86 8 core, dual socket quad core cpu
> package system
>
> SchedMC Run Time Package Idle Energy Power
> 0 81.28 52.43% 53.53% 1.00x J 1.00y W
> 1 80.71 37.35% 68.91% 0.96x J 0.97y W
> 2 76.05 23.81% 82.65% 0.92x J 0.98y W
>
> *** This is RFC code and not for inclusion ***
Hmm, so it makes it compile faster _and_ it saves power? Why to keep
it tunable at all if it is win-win? Or are there other benchmarks?
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists