[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <951b0986-bb35-d9a5-1639-0a8cdb3dcd04@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:50:00 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
To: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...ica.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...ts.01.org,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [cpufreq] 909c0e9cc1: fwq.fwq.med 210.0% improvement
On 3/5/2020 2:35 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a 210.0% improvement of fwq.fwq.med due to commit:
Well, that sounds impressive. :-)
>
> commit: 909c0e9cc11ba39fa5a660583b25c2431cf54deb ("cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use passive mode by default without HWP")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git intel_pstate-passive
>
> in testcase: fwq
> on test machine: 16 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU D-1541 @ 2.10GHz with 48G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> nr_task: 100%
> samples: 100000ss
> iterations: 18x
> cpufreq_governor: powersave
The governor should be schedutil, though, unless it is explicitly set to
powersave in the test environment.
Is that the case?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists