On 04/30/2019 11:57 AM, Thara Gopinath wrote: > On 04/29/2019 09:29 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: >> Hi Thara, >> >>> >>> Hackbench: (1 group , 30000 loops, 10 runs) >>> Result Standard Deviation >>> (Time Secs) (% of mean) >>> >>> No Thermal Pressure 10.21 7.99% >>> >>> Instantaneous thermal pressure 10.16 5.36% >>> >>> Thermal Pressure Averaging >>> using PELT fmwk 9.88 3.94% >>> >>> Thermal Pressure Averaging >>> non-PELT Algo. Decay : 500 ms 9.94 4.59% >>> >>> Thermal Pressure Averaging >>> non-PELT Algo. Decay : 250 ms 7.52 5.42% >>> >>> Thermal Pressure Averaging >>> non-PELT Algo. Decay : 125 ms 9.87 3.94% >>> >>> >> >> I'm trying your patches on my Hikey960 and I'm getting different results >> than the ones here. >> >> I'm running with the step-wise governor, enabled only on the big cores. >> The decay period is set to 250ms. >> >> The result for hackbench is: >> >> # ./hackbench -g 1 -l 30000 >> Running in process mode with 1 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 40 >> tasks) >> Each sender will pass 30000 messages of 100 bytes >> Time: 20.756 >> >> During the run I see the little cores running at maximum frequency >> (1.84GHz) while the big cores run mostly at 1.8GHz, only sometimes capped >> at 1.42GHz. There should not be any capacity inversion. >> The temperature is kept around 75 degrees (73 to 77 degrees). >> >> I don't have any kind of active cooling (no fans on the board), only a >> heatsink on the SoC. >> >> But as you see my results(~20s) are very far from the 7-10s in your >> results. >> >> Do you see anything wrong with this process? Can you give me more >> details on your setup that I can use to test on my board? > > Hi Ionela, > > I used the latest mainline kernel with sched/ tip merged in for my > testing. My hikey960 did not have any fan or heat sink during testing. I > disabled cpu cooling for little cores in the dts files. > Also I have to warn you that I have managed to blow up my hikey960. So I > no longer have a functional board for past two weeks or so. > > I don't have my test scripts to send you, but I have some of the results > files downloaded which I can send you in a separate email. > I did run the test 10 rounds.
Hi Ionela, I failed to mention that I drop the first run for averaging. > > Also I think 20s is too much of variation for the test results. Like I > mentioned in my previous emails I think the 7.52 is an anomaly but the > results should be around the range of 8-9 s. Also since we are more interested in comparison rather than absolute numbers did you run tests in a system with no thermal pressure( to see if there are any improvements)? Regards Thara > > Regards > Thara > >> >> Thank you, >> Ionela. >> > > -- Regards Thara
