lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
* MinChan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> [2008-12-30 08:43:58]:

> Hi, Vaidyanathan.
> It's very late reponse. :(
>
> > Results:
> > --------
> >
> > Basic functionality of the code has not changed and the power vs
> > performance benefits for kernbench are similar to the ones posted
> > earlier.
> >
> > KERNBENCH Runs: make -j4 on a x86 8 core, dual socket quad core cpu
> > package system
> >
> > SchedMC Run Time Package Idle Energy Power
> > 0 81.68 52.83% 54.71% 1.00x J 1.00y W
> > 1 80.70 36.62% 70.11% 0.95x J 0.96y W
> > 2 74.95 19.53% 85.92% 0.90x J 0.98y W
> >
> > The results are marginally better than the previous version of the
> > patch series which could be within the test variation.
> >
> > Please feel free to test, and let me know your comments and feedback.
> > I will post more experimental results with various benchmarks.
>
> Your result is very interesting.
> level 2 is more fast and efficient of power.
>
> What's major contributor to use less time in level 2?
> I think it's cache bounce is less time than old.
> Is right ?
>

Yes, correct

> I want to test SCHED_MC but I don't know what you use to benchmark about power.
> How do I get the data about 'Package, Idle, Energy, Power'?
>

Note, it is Package Idle (for both packages), it is a x86-64 8 core,
dual socket, quad core box. It is not Package, Idle.

For Energy and Power you need a means of measuring power like a meter.

> --
> Kinds regards,
> MinChan Kim
>

--
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-30 03:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans