[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160119120605.GA26634@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:06:05 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
* Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Note: PPW_RAPL= performance per watt measured by RAPL package power
> meter.
>
> If we just look at 20% forced idle, I can see significantly more deep
> package C-states(PC7) residency.
> Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7
> w/o patch 3.17 4.39 13.21
> w/ patch 1.15 1.43 17.24
Can this be translated to: "this patch improved power efficiency (watts per
second) by XYZ percent?", with XYZ filled in accordingly?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists