[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a14c639df462ead1cca4da20203eb1283f4d6cb5.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:55:50 -0800
From: srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@...eup.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: cpufreq: intel_pstate: map utilization into the pstate range
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 21:43 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > All the turbostat output and graphs I have sent recently were
> > > just
> > > for
> > > continuous spinning:
> > >
> > > for(;;);
> > >
> > > Now I am trying running for the percentage of the time
> > > corresponding
> > > to
> > > 10 / P for pstate P (ie 0.5 of the time for pstate 20), and then
> > > sleeping,
> > > to see whether one can just add the sleeping power consumption of
> > > the
> > > machine to compute the efficiency as Rafael suggested.
> > >
> > Before doing comparison try freezing uncore.
> >
> > wrmsr -a 0x620 0x0808
> >
> > to Freeze uncore at 800MHz. Any other value is fine.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. What is the impact of this?
Uncore scales based on its own heuristics based in P-state change and
works in package scope. So to actually see the effect of P-state change
on energy you can remove variability of uncore power.
Thanks,
Srinivas
>
> julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists