linux-kernel - Re: [11/11] system 1: Saving energy using DVFS

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]

Message-ID: <20140120182532.GB25920@earth.universe>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:25:33 +0100
From:	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...g0.de>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"markgross@...gnar.org" <markgross@...gnar.org>,
	"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [11/11] system 1: Saving energy using DVFS

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 06:54:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2014-01-20 17:10:29, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:49:26PM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > To save energy, the higher frequencies should be avoided and only used
> > > > when the application performance requirements can not be satisfied
> > > > otherwise (e.g. spread tasks across more cpus if possible).
> > > 
> > > I argue this is untrue for any task where user waits for its
> > > completion with screen on. (And that's quite important subset).
> > > 
> > > Lets take Nokia n900 as an example. 
> > > 
> > > (source http://wiki.maemo.org/N900_Hardware_Power_Consumption)
> > > 
> > > Sleeping CPU: 2mA
> > > Screen on: 230mA
> > > CPU loaded: 250mA
> > > 
> > > Now, lets believe your numbers and pretend system can operate at 33%
> > > of speed with 11% power consumption.
> > > 
> > > Lets take task that takes 10 seconds on max frequency:
> > > 
> > >       ~ 10s * 470mA     	     	    = 4700mAs
> > > 
> > > You suggest running at 33% speed, instead; that means 30 seconds on
> > > low requency.
> > > 
> > > CPU on low: 25mA (assumed).
> > > 
> > >      ~ 30s * 255mA			    = 7650mAs
> > > 
> > > Hmm. So race to idle is good thing on Intel machines, and it is good
> > > thing on ARM design I have access to.
> > 
> > Race to idle doesn't mean that the screen goes off as well. Let's say
> > the screen stays on for 1 min and the CPU needs to be running for 10s
> > over this minute, in the first case you have:
> 
> No, it does not. I just assumed user is continuing to use his
> machine. Obviously, waiting 60 seconds with screen on will make the
> difference look smaller. But your solution still means user has to
> wait longer _and_ you consume more battery doing so.
> 
> And this is for any task where user waits for result with screen
> on. Like rendering a webpage. Like opening settings screen. Like
> installing application.
> 
> There are not too many background tasks on a cellphone.
> 
> But hey, maybe you are right and running at lowest possible frequency
> is right. Please provide concrete numbers like I did.

So what about using the display status information for power
management? Basically always using the lowest frequency should be ok
on phones if the display is disabled?

-- Sebastian

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)