On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:50:22PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> For fairness and total threads consideration, powersaving cost quit
> similar energy on kbuild benchmark, and even better.
>
> 17348.850 27400.458 15973.776
> 13737.493 18487.248 12167.816
Yeah, but those lines don't look good - powersaving needs more energy
than performance.
And what is even crazier is that fixed 1.2 GHz case. I'd guess in
the normal case those cores are at triple the freq. - i.e. somewhere
around 3-4 GHz. And yet, 1.2 GHz eats almost *double* the power than
performance and powersaving.
So for the x=8 and maybe even the x=16 case we're basically better off
with performance.
Or could it be that the power measurements are not really that accurate
and those numbers above are not really correct?
Hmm.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/
