On 9 April 2013 22:26, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/05/2013 10:50 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote: >> >> Hi Viresh, >> >> On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> >>> Hi Stratos, >>> >>> Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the only >>> thing >>> we were looking for, then we will never use ondemand governor but >>> performance >>> governor. >>> >>> I suspect this little increase in performance must have increased power >>> numbers >>> too (significantly). So, if you can get numbers in the form of >>> power/performance >>> with and without your patch, it will be great. >>> >>> -- >>> viresh >>> >> >> I run some more tests. I increased the number of iterations to 100 (from >> 20). >> I also test for counter 1,000,000 (~4200us), 5,000,000 (~10000us), >> 15,000,000 (~30000us). >> >> This time, I also extracted statistics from cpufreq_stats driver. I think >> this will be an >> indication for power consumption. Below the results and attached the >> program I used for to >> get these numbers. > > > Any comments would be appreciated. Sorry, i forgot about this mail earlier.. Your performance numbers look improved but i am still not sure about power consumption. But as this is not going to be the default settings, i think we can take this patch. @Rafael:? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
