On 06/14/2013 12:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:22:18AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote: >> Please let me share some more test results using aim9 benchmark suite: >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnMfNYUV1k0ddDdGdlJyUHpqT2xGY1lBOEt2UEVnNlE&usp=sharing >> >> Each test was running for 10sec. >> Total execution time with and without the patch was almost identical, which is >> expected since the tests in aim9 run for a specific period. >> The energy during the test run was increased by 0.43% with the patch. >> The performance was increased by 1.25% (average) with this patch. > > Not bad. However, exec_test and fork_test are kinda unexpected with such > a high improvement percentage. Happen to have an explanation? > > FWIW, if we don't find any serious perf/power regressions with > this patch, I'd say it is worth applying even solely for the code > simplification it brings. > Although, I'm not sure about the unexpected improvement, I confirm this (run again the test). Also, there is important improvement in Directory searches (+5.79%), Disk Copies (+1.19%), shell scripts (1.20%, 1.51%, 2.38%) and tcp/udp tests (3.62%, 1.41%). I believe that ondemand has better performance with this patch in medium loads. Maybe these operations produce small to medium loads (lower than up_threshold) and push the CPU to medium frequencies. Without the patch CPU stays longer to min frequency. Thanks, Stratos -- 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
