On 04/03/2013 10:00 PM, Alex Shi wrote: > As mentioned in the power aware scheduling proposal, Power aware > scheduling has 2 assumptions: > 1, race to idle is helpful for power saving > 2, less active sched groups will reduce cpu power consumption
linux...@vger.kernel.org should be cc: on Linux proposals that affect power. > Since the patch can perfect pack tasks into fewer groups, I just show > some performance/power testing data here: > ========================================= > $for ((i = 0; i < x; i++)) ; do while true; do :; done & done > > On my SNB laptop with 4 core* HT: the data is avg Watts > powersaving performance > x = 8 72.9482 72.6702 > x = 4 61.2737 66.7649 > x = 2 44.8491 59.0679 > x = 1 43.225 43.0638 > on SNB EP machine with 2 sockets * 8 cores * HT: > powersaving performance > x = 32 393.062 395.134 > x = 16 277.438 376.152 > x = 8 209.33 272.398 > x = 4 199 238.309 > x = 2 175.245 210.739 > x = 1 174.264 173.603 The numbers above say nothing about performance, and thus don't tell us much. In particular, they don't tell us if reducing power by hacking the scheduler is more or less efficient than using the existing techniques that are already shipping, such as controlling P-states. > tasks number keep waving benchmark, 'make -j <x> vmlinux' > on my SNB EP 2 sockets machine with 8 cores * HT: > powersaving performance > x = 2 189.416 /228 23 193.355 /209 24 Energy = Power * Time 189.416*228 = 43186.848 Joules for powersaving to retire the workload 193.355*209 = 40411.195 Joules for performance to retire the workload. So the net effect of the 'powersaving' mode here is: 1. 228/209 = 9% performance degradation 2. 43186.848/40411.195 = 6.9 % more energy to retire the workload. These numbers suggest that this patch series simultaneously has a negative impact on performance and energy required to retire the workload. Why do it? > x = 4 215.728 /132 35 219.69 /122 37 ditto here. 8% increase in time. 6% increase in energy. > x = 8 244.31 /75 54 252.709 /68 58 ditto here 10% increase in time. 6% increase in energy. > x = 16 299.915 /43 77 259.127 /58 66 Are you sure that powersave mode ran in 43 seconds when performance mode ran in 58 seconds? If that is true, than somewhere in this patch series you have a _significant_ performance benefit on this workload under these conditions! Interestingly, powersave mode also ran at 15% higher power than performance mode. maybe "powersave" isn't quite the right name for it:-) > x = 32 341.221 /35 83 323.418 /38 81 Why does this patch series have a performance impact (8%) at x=32. All the processors are always busy, no? > data explains: 189.416 /228 23 > 189.416: average Watts during compilation > 228: seconds(compile time) > 23: scaled performance/watts = 1000000 / seconds / watts > The performance value of kbuild is better on threads 16/32, that's due > to lazy power balance reduced the context switch and CPU has more boost > chance on powersaving balance. 25% is a huge difference in performance. Can you get a performance benefit in that scenario without having a negative performance impact in the other scenarios? In particular, an 8% hit to the fully utilized case is a deal killer. The x=16 performance change here suggest there is value someplace in this patch series to increase performance. However, the case that these scheduling changes are a benefit from an energy efficiency point of view is yet to be made. thanks, -Len Brown Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
