[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c54e252d-dc55-5fa3-f97f-643d7efbfdc1@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 12:49:26 +0000
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: kgene@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
myungjoo.ham@...sung.com, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com,
Bartłomiej Żołnierkiewicz
<b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>, dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: exynos_defconfig: Enable Energy Model framework
Hi Krzysztof,
On 1/31/20 8:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:30:46PM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> |-----------------------------------------------|---------------
>>>> | performance | SchedUtil | SchedUtil | performance
>>>> | governor | governor | governor | governor
>>>> | | w/o EAS | w/ EAS |
>>>> ----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------
>>>> hackbench w/ PL | 12.7s | 11.7s | 12.0s | 13.0s - 12.2s
>>>> hackbench w/o PL| 9.2s | 8.1s | 8.2s | 9.2s - 8.4s
>>>
>>> Why does the performance different before and after this patch?
>>
>> Probably due to better locality and cache utilization. I can see that
>> there is ~700k context switches vs ~450k and ~160k migrations vs ~50k.
>> If you need to communicate two threads in different clusters, it will go
>> through CCI.
>
> Mhmm... I was not specific - I mean, "performance governor". All this
> you mentioned should not differ between performance governor before and
> after. However once you have 12.7, then 13.0 - 12.2. Unless multi-core
> scheduler affects it... but then these numbers here are not showing
> only this change, but also the SCHED_MC effect. In such case each of
> commits should be coming with their own numbers.
Agree, I should have not put 'this patch set' in the commit
msg. It should go into the cover letter and avoid this confusion.
You are right with ' Unless multi-core scheduler affects it...',
that's why when the SCHED_MC is missing, the decisions about task
placing might cause this variation and delay '13.0 - 12.2' seconds.
>
>> As mentioned in response to patch 1/3. The fist patch would create MC
>> domain, something different than Energy Model or EAS. The decisions in
>> the scheduler would be different.
>>
>> I can merge 1/3 and 3/3 if you like, though.
>
> I understand now that their independent. Still, they are part of one
> goal to tune the scheduler for Exynos platform. Splitting these looks
> too much, like enabling multiple drivers one after another.
>
> However if you provide numbers for each of cases (before patches, multi
> core scheduler, energy model with DTS), then I see benefit of splitting
> it. Each commit would have its own rationale. I am not sure if it is
> worth such investigation - that's just defconfig... distros might ignore
> it anyway.
Good point, and I agree that it would require more investigation, for
which unfortunately I don't have currently spare cycles.
Should I merge patch 1/3 and 3/3 and send the v2 with a cover letter
which would have the test results?
Regards,
Lukasz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists