linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <28c262360812291543ia322a13g6af854a685ce7632@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:43:58 +0900
From:	"MinChan Kim" <minchan.kim@...il.com>
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>,
	"Pavel Machek" <pavel@...e.cz>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n

Hi, Vaidyanathan.
It's very late reponse. :(

> 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       81.68        52.83% 54.71%  1.00x J 1.00y W
> 1       80.70        36.62% 70.11%  0.95x J 0.96y W
> 2       74.95        19.53% 85.92%  0.90x J 0.98y W
>
> The results are marginally better than the previous version of the
> patch series which could be within the test variation.
>
> Please feel free to test, and let me know your comments and feedback.
> I will post more experimental results with various benchmarks.

Your result is very interesting.
level 2 is more fast and efficient of power.

What's major contributor to use less time in level 2?
I think it's cache bounce is less time than old.
Is right ?

I want to test SCHED_MC but I don't know what you use to benchmark about power.
How do I get the data about 'Package, Idle, Energy, Power'?

-- 
Kinds regards,
MinChan Kim
--
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/