[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191216145624.GU2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:56:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, ionela.voinescu@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
qperret@...gle.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
amit.kachhap@...il.com, javi.merino@...nel.org,
amit.kucheria@...durent.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v6 0/7] Introduce Thermal Pressure
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:11:41PM -0500, Thara Gopinath wrote:
> Test Results
>
> Hackbench: 1 group , 30000 loops, 10 runs
> Result SD
> (Secs) (% of mean)
> No Thermal Pressure 14.03 2.69%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 13.29 0.56%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 12.57 1.56%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 12.71 1.04%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 12.29 1.42%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 12.42 1.15%
>
> Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS
> Result SD
> (Secs) (% of mean)
> No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41%
What is the conclusion, if any from these results? Clearly thermal
pressuse seems to help, but what window? ISTR we default to 32ms, which
is a wash for drystone, but sub-optimal for hackbench.
Anyway, the patches look more or less acceptible, just a bunch of nits,
the biggest being the fact that even if an architecture does not support
this there is still the code and runtime overhead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists