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]

Message-ID: <2270ebb6-3830-d667-1b9e-2efc96746b94@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 22:37:32 +0530
From: Ashay Jaiswal <quic_ashayj@...cinc.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC: 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>,
        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



On 1/30/2024 10:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 17:22, Ashay Jaiswal <quic_ashayj@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Generally speaking, it would be better to compare with the latest
> kernel or at least close and which includes new features added since
> v5.15 (which is more than 2 years old now). I understand that this is
> not always easy or doable but you could be surprised by the benefit of
> some features like [0] merged since v5.15
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/249816c9-c2b5-8016-f9ce-dab7b7d384e4@arm.com/
> 
Thank you Vincent for the suggestion, I will try to get the results on device running
with most recent kernel and update.

Thanks,
Ashay Jaiswal
>>
>>> 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