On Friday, June 14, 2013 12:37:41 AM Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:15:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:40:08 PM Borislav Petkov wrote: > > [ … ] > > > > 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. > > I know - you told me and I like that aspect :-). And from the test > results so far, the code simplification is maybe the most persuasive > one. The slight improvements in perf/power are then the cherry on top. > > Although, I'm not sure we're exhaustive with the benchmarks and we > should maybe run a couple more. Although, judging by the results, > generally no serious outliers should be expected (except exec_test and > fork_test funsies above), which are actually positive outliers. > > Judging by the code change, the only worry we should have, AFAIU, is > any raise in power consumption due to spending longer periods in the > intermediary P-states now and not going straight to the lowest P-state. > But this compensates with improvement in runtime of the workloads. > > Hmm, I dunno - I'm just thinking out loud here... OK, so here's a deal. After 3.10-rc1 goes out, I'll put this into linux-next for 3.12, so that people have a few more weeks to complain. If they don't, it'll go into 3.12. 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
