lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: exynos_defconfig: Enable Energy Model framework
From
Date
Hi Krzysztof,

On 1/31/20 8:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:30:46PM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> |-----------------------------------------------|---------------
>>>> | performance | SchedUtil | SchedUtil | performance
>>>> | governor | governor | governor | governor
>>>> | | w/o EAS | w/ EAS |
>>>> ----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------
>>>> hackbench w/ PL | 12.7s | 11.7s | 12.0s | 13.0s - 12.2s
>>>> hackbench w/o PL| 9.2s | 8.1s | 8.2s | 9.2s - 8.4s
>>>
>>> Why does the performance different before and after this patch?
>>
>> Probably due to better locality and cache utilization. I can see that
>> there is ~700k context switches vs ~450k and ~160k migrations vs ~50k.
>> If you need to communicate two threads in different clusters, it will go
>> through CCI.
>
> Mhmm... I was not specific - I mean, "performance governor". All this
> you mentioned should not differ between performance governor before and
> after. However once you have 12.7, then 13.0 - 12.2. Unless multi-core
> scheduler affects it... but then these numbers here are not showing
> only this change, but also the SCHED_MC effect. In such case each of
> commits should be coming with their own numbers.

Agree, I should have not put 'this patch set' in the commit
msg. It should go into the cover letter and avoid this confusion.
You are right with ' Unless multi-core scheduler affects it...',
that's why when the SCHED_MC is missing, the decisions about task
placing might cause this variation and delay '13.0 - 12.2' seconds.

>
>> As mentioned in response to patch 1/3. The fist patch would create MC
>> domain, something different than Energy Model or EAS. The decisions in
>> the scheduler would be different.
>>
>> I can merge 1/3 and 3/3 if you like, though.
>
> I understand now that their independent. Still, they are part of one
> goal to tune the scheduler for Exynos platform. Splitting these looks
> too much, like enabling multiple drivers one after another.
>
> However if you provide numbers for each of cases (before patches, multi
> core scheduler, energy model with DTS), then I see benefit of splitting
> it. Each commit would have its own rationale. I am not sure if it is
> worth such investigation - that's just defconfig... distros might ignore
> it anyway.

Good point, and I agree that it would require more investigation, for
which unfortunately I don't have currently spare cycles.

Should I merge patch 1/3 and 3/3 and send the v2 with a cover letter
which would have the test results?

Regards,
Lukasz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-05 13:50    [W:0.132 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site