From: Sai Gurrappadi Subject: Re: [RFCv4 PATCH 00/34] sched: Energy cost model for energy-aware scheduling Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 15:07:26 -0700 Message-ID: <5552799E.2060507@nvidia.com> References: <1431459549-18343-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1431459549-18343-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Morten Rasmussen , peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org, Dietmar Eggemann , yuyang.du@intel.com, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mturquette@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, Juri Lelli , pang.xunlei@zte.com.cn, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Boonstoppel List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 05/12/2015 12:38 PM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > Test results for ARM TC2 (2xA15+3xA7) with cpufreq enabled: > > sysbench: Single task running for 3 seconds. > rt-app [4]: mp3 playback use-case model > rt-app [4]: 5 ~[6,13,19,25,31,38,44,50]% periodic (2ms) tasks > > Note: % is relative to the capacity of the fastest cpu at the highest > frequency, i.e. the more busy ones do not fit on little cpus. > > A newer version of rt-app was used which supports a better but slightly > different way of modelling the periodic tasks. Numbers are therefore > _not_ comparable to the RFCv3 numbers. > > Average numbers for 20 runs per test (ARM TC2). > > Energy Mainline EAS noEAS > > sysbench 100 251* 227* > > rt-app mp3 100 63 111 > > rt-app 6% 100 42 102 > rt-app 13% 100 58 101 > rt-app 19% 100 87 101 > rt-app 25% 100 94 104 > rt-app 31% 100 93 104 > rt-app 38% 100 114 117 > rt-app 44% 100 115 118 > rt-app 50% 100 125 126 Hi Morten, What is noEAS? From the numbers, noEAS != Mainline? Maybe also have some perf numbers to show that perf is in fact preserved while lowering power. -Sai