On 04/16/2013 07:12 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > 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.
yes, the max freq is 2.7 GHZ, plus boost. > > 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? testing has a little variation, but the power data is quite accurate. I may change to packing tasks per cpu capacity than current cpu weight. that should has better power efficient value. > > Hmm. > -- Thanks Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
