lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] Introduce greedy hrtimer walk on idle
From
>> I tested the patch against 3.1 kernel for specpower benchmark on our
>> machine, westmere core laptop Thinkpad t410(internal name lkp-t410),
>> and on Romely-EP machine(lkp-sb03). No clear power or performance
>> change found. the performance and power has no clear change for every
>> level system load. from 0 to 100%.
>
> Thanks Alex for testing this. Likely that with specpower there are not
> many active timers. Was the run with run level 5 and with all the system daemons
> that come with distro active?
>

The testing run under level 3, without X system. and there really has
no many daemons.
Following is the LOC record on the westmere laptop, before and after
testing. testing costs 4368'.

LOC: 22850 24984 60558 61003 Local timer interrupts
---
LOC: 2773346 2772016 2623716 2644598 Local timer interrupts
There are about 65 interrupts per second on each of cpu. Yes it is not
too much.

Without your patch, the timer interrupts number as following:
LOC: 10564 11942 11758 13075 Local timer interrupts
---
LOC: 2805402 2800421 2671229 2663266 Local timer interrupts
As to X system timers, I didn't find much timers on my working
desktop, the LOC change just a little during 120'. That is i7, Ubuntu,
without default daemons and running many APPs like, evolution/firefox
etc etc.

LOC: 125 114 97 80 63 110108127
77084851 77289464 Local timer interrupts
--
LOC: 125 114 97 80 63 110112467
77087975 77294653 Local timer interrupts

So, guess, X system is not good candidate to show the patch effect.
Any others benchmarks recommend?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-02 02:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans