lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency
On 06/14/2013 12:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite:
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnMfNYUV1k0ddDdGdlJyUHpqT2xGY1lBOEt2UEVnNlE&usp=sharing
>>
>> Each test was running for 10sec.
>> Total execution time with and without the patch was almost identical, which is
>> expected since the tests in aim9 run for a specific period.
>> The energy during the test run was increased by 0.43% with the patch.
>> The performance was increased by 1.25% (average) with this patch.
>
> Not bad. However, exec_test and fork_test are kinda unexpected with such
> a high improvement percentage. Happen to have an explanation?
>
> FWIW, if we don't find any serious perf/power regressions with
> this patch, I'd say it is worth applying even solely for the code
> simplification it brings.
>

Although, I'm not sure about the unexpected improvement, I confirm this
(run again the test). Also, there is important improvement in
Directory searches (+5.79%), Disk Copies (+1.19%), shell scripts
(1.20%, 1.51%, 2.38%) and tcp/udp tests (3.62%, 1.41%).

I believe that ondemand has better performance with this patch in
medium loads. Maybe these operations produce small to medium loads (lower
than up_threshold) and push the CPU to medium frequencies. Without the
patch CPU stays longer to min frequency.

Thanks,
Stratos



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-14 00:21    [W:0.060 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site