On Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:14:49 PM Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Can you possibly prepare a graph showing both the execution time > > and energy consumption for several different loop durations in your > > program (let's keep the 5000 us sleep for now), including multiples of > > sampling_rate as well as some other durations? > > Judgind by the times in C0 one of the cores spent, this small program > is single-threaded and is a microbenchmark. Yes, it is single-threaded, but that can be easily addressed by running multiple copies of it in parallel. :-) And yes, it is a microbenchmark, -> > And you know how optimizing against a microbenchmark doesn't really make > a lot of sense. -> but this is more about finding possible issues that about optimizing. I'm regarding this change as a substantial code simplification in the first place, both in terms of conceptual complexity and the actual code size, so I'd like to know what is *likely* to be affected by it (be it a microbenchmark or whatever). IOW, try to play a devil's advocate and find something that get's worse after applying these changes. If we can't find anything like that, there won't be any reason not to apply them. > I wonder if lmbench or aim9 or whatever would make more sense to try here... I think we'll need to try them too. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
