On Sunday, September 04, 2016 08:54:49 AM Doug Smythies wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On 2016.09.02 17:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks > > ago. Since the first two patches from that series have been reworked and > > are in linux-next now, I've rebased this series on top of my linux-next > > branch. > > > > In addition to that I took the Doug's feedback into account in the > > intel_pstate patches [2-3/4]. > > You got ahead of me a little. > Recall the suggestion for the addition of some filtering was based > on energy savings. And further that it might make sense to use > average pstate as input to the filter (your new patch 3 of 4). > In my testing (of the old patch set) I have been finding that some > of those energy savings are being given back by the average pstate > method, putting its value added into question. > > Switching to the new patch set, I made two kernels (based on 4.8-rc4 > + your pre-requisite 2 patches): > rfc4: has all 4 patches. > rfc2: has patches 1, 2, 4. (does not have the average pstate change) > > Using my SpecPower simulator test at 20% load I get: > > Unpatched (reference): ~5905 Joules > rfc4: ~ 6232 Joules (+5.5%) > rfc2: ~ 6075 Joules (+2.9%) > Old rfc, no filter (restated): ~7197 Joules (+21.9%) > Old rfc + old iir filter V2: ~5967 Joules (+1%) > Old rfc + old ave pstate method: ~6275 Joules (+6.3%) > > Srinivas was getting considerably different, but still > encouraging, numbers on the real SpecPower test beds. > > I would like to suggest/ask that those real SpecPower tests be done > first so as to decide a preferred way forward. I'll also re-do my > simulator tests over a longer time period and at some other loads > (currently 20% is hard coded).
The reason I made patch [3/4] separate was to make it easier to test without that change. That is, apply [1-2/4] and see what difference it makes. I'd like to see the results from that if poss. Thanks, Rafael
