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

Date:	Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:46:17 +0300
From:	Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target
 frequency

On 06/06/2013 03:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:40:13PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> his patch will give significant improvement both power & performance wise.
> 
> Yes, and I'd like to see the paperwork on that. Numbers, and on a couple
> of platforms/vendors if possible, please.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

On 06/06/2013 04:15 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:> Please do not top-post.
> 
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:54:20PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> I will try to provide the requested info (although, I'm not sure how
>> to measure total energy :) )
> 
> tools/power/x86/turbostat looks like a good tool. It can show, a.o.,
> power consumption in Watts on modern Intels and other interesting stuff.
> 
> HTH.
> 

Apologies for top-posting. I was able to send email only from my phone.

Thanks for you hint about turbostat.

As you most probably understood, I'm individual amateur kernel developer.
I could provide some numbers from x86 architecture as Rafael suggested.
But unfortunately, I don't have access to more sources/infrastructure.
So, I will not be able to provide numbers from different platform(s).

I've already provided some benchmarks from x86 (3.10-rc3) and also
tested the patch in 3.4.47 kernel (ARM, Nexus 4 phone, ~1000 installations)
and in 3.0.80 kernel (ARM, Samsung Galaxy S phone, ~1500 installations).

Kindly let me know if "couple of platforms/vendors" is a show stopper
for this patch series. If yes, please ignore this patch and accept
my apologies for wasting your time. I am just trying to contribute
on this project (I believe there is space here for amateur developers).

Many thanks to Rafael who helped me and guide me.
Thanks to Viresh for his helpful comments and his acknowledgment for
the patch.

Best Regards,
Stratos
--
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/