[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130415231206.GE12144@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:12:06 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
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 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.
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?
Hmm.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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