On 04/30/2019 10:39 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Hi Thara, > > On 29/04/2019 14:29, 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? >> > > I've found that my poor results above were due to debug options > mistakenly left enabled in the defconfig. Sorry about that! > > After cleaning it up I'm getting results around 5.6s for this test case. > I've run 50 iterations for each test, with 90s cool down period between > them. > > > Hackbench: (1 group , 30000 loops, 50 runs) > Result Standard Deviation > (Time Secs) (% of mean) > > No Thermal Pressure(step_wise) 5.644 7.760% > No Thermal Pressure(IPA) 5.677 9.062% > > Thermal Pressure Averaging > non-PELT Algo. Decay : 250 ms 5.627 5.593% > (step-wise, bigs capped only) > > Thermal Pressure Averaging > non-PELT Algo. Decay : 250 ms 5.690 3.738% > (IPA) > > All of the results above are within 1.1% difference with a > significantly higher standard deviation.
Hi Ionela, I have replied to your original emails without seeing this one. So, interesting results. I see IPA is worse off (Slightly) than step wise in both thermal pressure and non-thermal pressure scenarios. Did you try 500 ms decay period by any chance? > > I wanted to run this initially to validate my setup and understand > if there is any conclusion we can draw from a test like this, that > floods the CPUs with tasks. Looking over the traces, the tasks are > running almost back to back, trying to use all available resources, > on all the CPUs. > Therefore, I doubt that there could be better decisions that could be > made, knowing about thermal pressure, for this usecase. > > I'll try next some capacity inversion usecase and post the results when > they are ready. Sure. let me know if I can help. Regards Thara > > Hope it helps, > Ionela. > > >> Thank you, >> Ionela. >> -- Regards Thara
