Re: [patch v7 0/21] sched: power aware scheduling

[Mike Galbraith]

On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 17:53 -0400, Len Brown wrote: 
> On 04/12/2013 12:48 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 18:23 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: 
> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 04:46:50PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >>> Thanks a lot for comments, Len!
> >>
> >> AFAICT, you kinda forgot to answer his most important question:
> >>
> >>> These numbers suggest that this patch series simultaneously
> >>> has a negative impact on performance and energy required
> >>> to retire the workload.  Why do it?
> > 
> > Hm.  When I tested AIM7 compute on a NUMA box, there was a marked
> > throughput increase at the low to moderate load end of the test spectrum
> > IIRC.  Fully repeatable.  There were also other benefits unrelated to
> > power, ie mitigation of the evil face of select_idle_sibling().  I
> > rather liked what I saw during ~big box test-drive.
> > 
> > (just saying there are other aspects besides joules in there)
> 
> Mike,
> 
> Can you re-run your AIM7 measurement with turbo-mode and HT-mode disabled,
> and then independently re-enable them?
> 
> If you still see the performance benefit, then that proves
> that the scheduler hacks are not about tricking into
> turbo mode, but something else.

I did that today, neither turbo nor HT affected the performance gain.  I
used the same box and patch set as tested before (v4), but plugged into
linus HEAD.  "powersaving" AIM7 numbers are ~identical to those I posted
before, "performance" is lower at the low end of AIM7 test spectrum, but
as before, delta goes away once the load becomes hefty.

-Mike

--
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/