[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8dfb5db7-6da0-4f6f-30ef-8966428e4a1c@quicinc.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 21:51:57 +0530
From: Ashay Jaiswal <quic_ashayj@...cinc.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
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>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
<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>,
<quic_anshar@...cinc.com>, <quic_atulpant@...cinc.com>,
<quic_shashim@...cinc.com>, <quic_rgottimu@...cinc.com>,
<quic_adharmap@...cinc.com>, <quic_kshivnan@...cinc.com>,
<quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] sched/pelt: Introduce PELT multiplier
Hello Qais Yousef,
Thank you for your response.
On 1/21/2024 5:34 AM, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Hi Ashay
>
> On 01/20/24 13:22, Ashay Jaiswal wrote:
>> Hello Qais Yousef,
>>
>> We ran few benchmarks with PELT multiplier patch on a Snapdragon 8Gen2
>> based internal Android device and we are observing significant
>> improvements with PELT8 configuration compared to PELT32.
>>
>> Following are some of the benchmark results with PELT32 and PELT8
>> configuration:
>>
>> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> | Test case | PELT32 | PELT8 |
>> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> | | Overall | 711543 | 971275 |
>> | +---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> | | CPU | 193704 | 224378 |
>> | +---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> |ANTUTU V9.3.9 | GPU | 284650 | 424774 |
>> | +---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> | | MEM | 125207 | 160548 |
>> | +---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> | | UX | 107982 | 161575 |
>> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> | | Single core | 1170 | 1268 |
>> |GeekBench V5.4.4 +---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> | | Multi core | 2530 | 3797 |
>> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> | | Twitter | >50 Janks | 0 |
>> | SCROLL +---------------+----------------+----------------+
>> | | Contacts | >30 Janks | 0 |
>> +-----------------+---------------+----------------+----------------+
>>
>> Please let us know if you need any support with running any further
>> workloads for PELT32/PELT8 experiments, we can help with running the
>> experiments.
>
> Thanks a lot for the test results. Was this tried with this patch alone or
> the whole series applied?
>
I have only applied patch8(sched/pelt: Introduce PELT multiplier) for the tests.
> Have you tried to tweak each policy response_time_ms introduced in patch
> 7 instead? With the series applied, boot with PELT8, record the response time
> values for each policy, then boot back again to PELT32 and use those values.
> Does this produce similar results?
>
As the device is based on 5.15 kernel, I will try to pull all the 8 patches
along with the dependency patches on 5.15 and try out the experiments as
suggested.
> You didn't share power numbers which I assume the perf gains are more important
> than the power cost for you.
>
If possible I will try to collect the power number for future test and share the
details.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists