Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Apr 2016 14:33:38 +0200 | Subject | Re: [regression] cross core scheduling frequency drop bisected to 0c313cb20732 | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> |
| |
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 22:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, April 08, 2016 08:50:54 AM Mike Galbraith wrote: >> > On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 08:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > >> > > Cute, I thought you used governor=performance for your runs? >> > >> > I do, and those numbers are with it thus set. >> >> Well, this is a trade-off. >> >> 4.5 introduced a power regression here so this one goes back to the previous >> state of things. > > That sounds somewhat reasonable. Too bad I don't have a super duper > watt meter handy.. seeing that you really really are saving me money > would perhaps make me less fond of those prettier numbers.
You can look at the turbostat Watts numbers ("turbostat --debug" and the last three columns of the output in turbostat as included in the kernel source).
That requires an Intel CPU with RAPL.
| |