Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2016.02.11 14:50 Doug Smythies wrote:
>> On 2016.02.10 22:03 Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 03:11:43 PM Doug Smythies wrote:
>
>>>> My test computer has an older model i7 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz)
>>> Thanks Doug. If you have specific workloads, please compare performance.
>
>> My work so far has been testing functionality, with unrealistic workloads specifically
>> designed to exaggerate issues, in this case the duration problem.
>>
>> I'll look at some real world workload scenarios.
>
> Turbostat used for package power, starts before Phoronix tests starts,
> and ends after Phoronix test ends.
>
> Control Sample: Kernel 4.5-rc3:
> Phoronix ffmpeg: turbostat 180 Sec. 12.07 Sec. Ave. 27.14 Watts.
> Phoronix apache: turbostat 200 Sec. 19797.0 R.P.S. Ave. 34.01 Watts.
> Phoronix kernel: turbostat 180 Sec. 139.93 Sec. 49.09 Watts.
> Phoronix Postmark (Disk Test): turbostat 200 Sec. 5813 T.P.S. Ave. 21.33 Watts.
>
> Kernel 4.5-rc3 + RJW 3 patch set version 7:
> Phoronix ffmpeg: turbostat 180 Sec. 11.67 Sec. Ave. 27.35 Watts.
> Phoronix apache: turbostat 200 Sec. 19430.7 R.P.S. Ave. 34.18 Watts.
> Phoronix kernel: turbostat 180 Sec. 139.81 Sec. 48.80 Watts.
> Phoronix Postmark (Disk Test): turbostat 200 Sec. 5683 T.P.S. Ave. 22.41 Watts.

Thanks for the results!

The Postmark result is somewhat below expectations (especially with
respect to the energy consumption), but we should be able to improve
that by using the util numbers intelligently.

Do you have full turbostat reports from those runs by any chance?  I'm
wondering what happens to the idle state residencies, for example.

Thanks,
Rafael