linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] sched/pelt: Introduce PELT multiplier

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, 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