Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect

From: Stratos Karafotis
Date: Mon Jul 21 2014 - 01:42:25 EST


On 21/07/2014 12:51 ÏÎ, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>>>>> Tested on Intel i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz and on ARM quad core 1500MHz Krait
>>>>>> (Android smartphone).
>>>>>> Benchmarks on Intel i7 shows a performance improvement on low and medium
>>>>>> work loads with lower power consumption. Specifics:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phoronix Linux Kernel Compilation 3.1:
>>>>>> Time: -0.40%, energy: -0.07%
>>>>>> Phoronix Apache:
>>>>>> Time: -4.98%, energy: -2.35%
>>>>>> Phoronix FFMPEG:
>>>>>> Time: -6.29%, energy: -4.02%
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. Intel i7 should be race-to-idle machine. So basically rule like
>>>>> if (load > 0) go to max frequency else go to lowest frequency would do
>>>>> the right thing in your test, right?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that "if (load > 0) go to max" will work even on i7.
>>>> For low load this will have impact on energy consumption.
>>>
>>> Are you sure? CPU frequency should not matter on idle CPU.
>>
>> Even on a totally idle CPU there will be a small impact because of leakage
>> current (thanks to Dirk Brandewie for this info).
>
> Are you sure? IIRC Intel cpus will automatically lower CPU frequency
> in deep C states..

I'm sorry. I don't know further details about the leakage current
in deeper C states.

>> This simple test on a nearly idle system shows this:
>>
>> [root@albert cpufreq]# for CPUFREQ in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor; do [ -f $CPUFREQ ] || continue; echo -n performance > $CPUFREQ; done
>> [root@albert cpufreq]# /home/stratosk/kernels/linux-pm/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat -J sleep 20
>> Core CPU Avg_MHz %Busy Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz SMI CPU%c1 CPU%c3 CPU%c6 CPU%c7 CoreTmp PkgTmp Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc3 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7 Pkg_J Cor_J GFX_J time
>> - - 2 0.06 2712 3392 0 0.30 0.00 99.63 0.00 34 34 8.09 0.00 81.94 0.00 380.41 14.51 1.64 20.00
>> 0 0 0 0.02 1891 3392 0 0.09 0.00 99.88 0.00 34 34 8.09 0.00 81.94 0.00 380.41 14.51 1.64 20.00
>> 0 4 1 0.04 3006 3392 0 0.07
>> 1 1 1 0.04 2501 3392 0 0.62 0.00 99.33 0.00 34
>> 1 5 0 0.01 2346 3392 0 0.66
>> 2 2 0 0.01 1996 3392 0 0.44 0.00 99.55 0.00 34
>> 2 6 4 0.18 2278 3392 0 0.26
>> 3 3 5 0.15 3449 3392 0 0.07 0.01 99.77 0.00 34
>> 3 7 0 0.01 1839 3392 0 0.21
>> 20.000899 sec
>> [root@albert cpufreq]# ^C
>> [root@albert cpufreq]# for CPUFREQ in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor; do [ -f $CPUFREQ ] || continue; echo -n ondemand > $CPUFREQ; done
>> [root@albert cpufreq]# /home/stratosk/kernels/linux-pm/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat -J sleep 20
>> Core CPU Avg_MHz %Busy Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz SMI CPU%c1 CPU%c3 CPU%c6 CPU%c7 CoreTmp PkgTmp Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc3 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7 Pkg_J Cor_J GFX_J time
>> - - 2 0.09 1693 3392 0 0.35 0.01 99.55 0.00 35 36 8.33 0.00 84.31 0.00 377.68 12.23 1.15 20.00
>> 0 0 1 0.08 1603 3392 0 0.13 0.00 99.79 0.00 35 36 8.33 0.00 84.31 0.00 377.68 12.23 1.15 20.00
>> 0 4 1 0.08 1646 3392 0 0.13
>> 1 1 1 0.06 1647 3392 0 0.66 0.00 99.28 0.00 35
>> 1 5 0 0.01 1611 3392 0 0.71
>> 2 2 0 0.02 1617 3392 0 0.50 0.02 99.46 0.00 35
>> 2 6 4 0.22 1764 3392 0 0.30
>> 3 3 4 0.25 1701 3392 0 0.07 0.00 99.68 0.00 35
>> 3 7 0 0.01 1602 3392 0 0.31
>> 20.001580 sec
>>
>>
>> So, for low loads the impact will be higher.
>
> So it seems ondemand saves cca 1% of energy?

Yes, in this small test, on my nearly "idle" system.


Stratos
--
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/