Re: [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling
From: Alex Shi
Date: Mon Apr 15 2013 - 20:23:14 EST
On 04/16/2013 07:12 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:50:22PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> For fairness and total threads consideration, powersaving cost quit
>> similar energy on kbuild benchmark, and even better.
>> 17348.850 27400.458 15973.776
>> 13737.493 18487.248 12167.816
> Yeah, but those lines don't look good - powersaving needs more energy
> than performance.
> And what is even crazier is that fixed 1.2 GHz case. I'd guess in
> the normal case those cores are at triple the freq. - i.e. somewhere
> around 3-4 GHz. And yet, 1.2 GHz eats almost *double* the power than
> performance and powersaving.
yes, the max freq is 2.7 GHZ, plus boost.
> So for the x=8 and maybe even the x=16 case we're basically better off
> with performance.
> Or could it be that the power measurements are not really that accurate
> and those numbers above are not really correct?
testing has a little variation, but the power data is quite accurate. I
may change to packing tasks per cpu capacity than current cpu weight.
that should has better power efficient value.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/