On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 17:42, Chris Redpath <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 09/07/2019 16:36, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > > >> > >> We enter this code quite often in our testing, most individual runs of a > >> test which has small tasks involved have at least one hit where we make > >> a change to the clock with this patch in. > > > > Do you have a rt-app file that you can share ? > > > > The ThreeSmallTasks test which is the worst hit produces this: > > { > "tasks": { > "small_0": { > "policy": "SCHED_OTHER", > "delay": 0, > "loop": 1, > "phases": { > "p000001": { > "loop": 62, > "run": 2880, > "timer": { > "ref": "small_0", > "period": 16000 > } > } > } > }, > "small_1": { > "policy": "SCHED_OTHER", > "delay": 0, > "loop": 1, > "phases": { > "p000001": { > "loop": 62, > "run": 2880, > "timer": { > "ref": "small_1", > "period": 16000 > } > } > } > }, > "small_2": { > "policy": "SCHED_OTHER", > "delay": 0, > "loop": 1, > "phases": { > "p000001": { > "loop": 62, > "run": 2880, > "timer": { > "ref": "small_2", > "period": 16000 > } > } > } > } > }, > "global": { > "default_policy": "SCHED_OTHER", > "duration": -1, > "calibration": 264, > "logdir": "/root/devlib-target" > } > } > > when I run it
Thanks I will make it a try on my b.L platform > > >> > >> That said - despite the relatively high number of hits only about 5% of > >> runs see enough additional energy consumed to trigger a test failure. We > >> do try to keep a quiet system as much as possible and only run for a few > >> seconds so the impact we see in testing is also probably higher than in > >> the real world. > > > > Yeah, I'm curious to see the impact on a real system which have a > > 60fps screen update like an android phone > > > > I wouldn't expect much change there but I would on the idle-ish > homescreen/day-of-use type benchmarks. > > If I had a platform with any kind of representative energy use, I'd test > it :)
