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: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:19:04 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, 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>
Cc: 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 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 ?

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]

> ==
> 
> 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:

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

on baseline?

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 ?

[...]