[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180516163105.GP28366@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 18:31:05 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, lenb@...nel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, x86@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] [PATCH 02/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional
frequency invariant accounting
On 16/05/18 17:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:19:25PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> > Anyway, FWIW I started testing this on a E5-2609 v3 and I'm not seeing
> > hackbench regressions so far (running with schedutil governor).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)#Server_processors
>
> Lists the E5 2609 v3 as not having turbo at all, which is basically a
> best case scenario for this patch.
>
> As I wrote earlier today; when turbo exists, like say the 2699, then
> when we're busy we'll run at U=2.3/3.6 ~ .64, which might confuse
> things.
Indeed. I was mostly trying to see if adding this to the tick might
introduce noticeable overhead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists