[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1645236.hTWQPUhyIx@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:15:36 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
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 Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40:08 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> > Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite:
> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnMfNYUV1k0ddDdGdlJyUHpqT2xGY1lBOEt2UEVnNlE&usp=sharing
> >
> > Each test was running for 10sec.
> > Total execution time with and without the patch was almost identical, which is
> > expected since the tests in aim9 run for a specific period.
> > The energy during the test run was increased by 0.43% with the patch.
> > The performance was increased by 1.25% (average) with this patch.
>
> Not bad. However, exec_test and fork_test are kinda unexpected with such
> a high improvement percentage. Happen to have an explanation?
>
> FWIW, if we don't find any serious perf/power regressions with
> this patch, I'd say it is worth applying even solely for the code
> simplification it brings.
May I take this as an ACK? ;-)
Well, that's my opinion too, actually.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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