linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched: cpufreq: Remove uclamp max-aggregation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:23:12 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
	Rick Yiu <rickyiu@...gle.com>, Chung-Kai Mei <chungkai@...gle.com>,
	Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched: cpufreq: Remove uclamp max-aggregation

On 12/18/23 09:19, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 08/12/2023 02:52, Qais Yousef wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > ===
> > 
> > This patch is based on remove margins series [1] and data is collected it
> > against it as a baseline.
> > 
> > Testing on pixel 6 with mainline(ish) kernel
> 
> How is the Pixel6 configured in terms of per-policy rate_limit_us and
> response_time_ms ? Is this the now default 2ms and whatever the systems
> calculates for response_time_ms ?

Yes.

> 
> Pixel6 is still a slow switching device, rigth?
> 
> root           297     2 1 08:58:01 ?     00:00:13 [sugov:0]
> root           298     2 0 08:58:01 ?     00:00:03 [sugov:4]
> root           299     2 1 08:58:01 ?     00:00:05 [sugov:6]

Yes.

> 
> > ==
> > 
> > Speedometer browser benchmark
> > 
> >        | baseline  | 1.25 headroom |   patch   | patch + 1.25 headroom
> > -------+-----------+---------------+-----------+---------------------
> > score  |  108.03   |     135.72    |   108.09  |    137.47
> > -------+-----------+---------------+-----------+---------------------
> > power  |  1204.75  |    1451.79    |  1216.17  |    1484.73
> > -------+-----------+---------------+-----------+---------------------
> 
> What's the difference between baseline & 1.25 headroom. IMHO, we have:

Baseline is the remove-margins patches as specified in the quoted text above

	> > This patch is based on remove margins series [1] and data is collected it
	> > against it as a baseline.

The series were stacked on top of each others. Results from this run should be
compared to remove-margins[1] tables too.

> 
>  static inline unsigned long map_util_perf(unsigned long util)
>  {
>    return util + (util >> 2);
>  }
> 
> on baseline?

This is not baseline. See above.

> 
> By patch you refer to the whole patch-set + [1]?
> 
> And I assume 'patch + 1.25 headroom' is 'response_time_ms' tuned to
> reach 1.25 ?

Yes. Which is done by multiplying the response_time_ms with 0.8.


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef