lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling
    On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 09:28:50AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
    > Even some scenario the total energy cost more, at least the avg watts
    > dropped in that scenarios.

    Ok, what's wrong with x = 32 then? So basically if you're looking at
    avg watts, you don't want to have more than 16 threads, otherwise
    powersaving sucks on that particular uarch and platform. Can you say
    that for all platforms out there?

    Also, I've added in the columns below the Energy = Power * Time thing.

    And the funny thing is, exactly there where avg watts is better in
    powersaving, energy for workload retire is worse. And the other way
    around. Basically, avg watts vs retire energy is reciprocal. Great :-\.

    > Len said he has low p-state which can work there. but that's is
    > different. I had sent some data in another email list to show the
    > difference:
    >
    > The following is 2 times kbuild testing result for 3 kinds condiation on
    > SNB EP box, the middle column is the lowest p-state testing result, we
    > can see, it has the lowest power consumption, also has the lowest
    > performance/watts value.
    > At least for kbuild benchmark, powersaving policy has the best
    > compromise on powersaving and power efficient. Further more, due to cpu
    > boost feature, it has better performance in some scenarios.
    >
    > powersaving + ondemand userspace + fixed 1.2GHz performance+ondemand
    > x = 8 231.318 /75 57 165.063 /166 36 253.552 /63 62
    > x = 16 280.357 /49 72 174.408 /106 54 296.776 /41 82
    > x = 32 325.206 /34 90 178.675 /90 62 314.153 /37 86
    >
    > x = 8 233.623 /74 57 164.507 /168 36 254.775 /65 60
    > x = 16 272.54 /38 96 174.364 /106 54 297.731 /42 79
    > x = 32 320.758 /34 91 177.917 /91 61 317.875 /35 89
    > x = 64 326.837 /33 92 179.037 /90 62 320.615 /36 86

    17348.850 27400.458 15973.776
    13737.493 18487.248 12167.816
    11057.004 16080.750 11623.661

    17288.102 27637.176 16560.375
    10356.52 18482.584 12504.702
    10905.772 16190.447 11125.625
    10785.621 16113.330 11542.140

    --
    Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

    Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
    --


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-04-14 18:41    [W:2.773 / U:1.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site