On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40:08 PM 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. May I take this as an ACK? ;-) Well, that's my opinion too, actually. 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
