Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: ACPI CPUfreq vs. Intel P-State Scaling With Linux 3.15

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,111

    Default ACPI CPUfreq vs. Intel P-State Scaling With Linux 3.15

    Phoronix: ACPI CPUfreq vs. Intel P-State Scaling With Linux 3.15

    For this weekend's Linux benchmarks we are looking at the performance of the Intel P-State and ACPI cpufreq drivers and comparing their scaling governor options when testing from an Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition system running with the Linux 3.15 development kernel.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20399

  2. #2

    Default

    This makes no sense, Michael.

    The ACPI performance governor cannot be slower than ondemand one. It just cannot - it keeps the CPU at its highest frequency all the time.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    This makes no sense, Michael.

    The ACPI performance governor cannot be slower than ondemand one. It just cannot - it keeps the CPU at its highest frequency all the time.
    But does Turbo Boost works when performance governor holds the CPU at highest frequency?

  4. #4

    Default

    Yes, it surely does.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    149

    Default

    When timing the compilation of the Linux kernel with these different CPU scaling settings, there was a huge difference. The Intel P-State Performance configuration led to the best results that were timed the same as ACPI CPUfreq with the on-demand governor while the other configurations were about twice as slow!
    Something is really wrong with scaling governors on linux... :/ How can "On-demand" be faster and much more power consuming than "Performance"? What kind of bullshit is this?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    Something is really wrong with scaling governors on linux... :/ How can "On-demand" be faster and much more power consuming than "Performance"? What kind of bullshit is this?
    It is.
    On my atom netbook, even while idling, acpi powersave governor drains more power than the performance one, and is slower.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kokoko3k View Post
    On my atom netbook, even while idling, acpi powersave governor drains more power than the performance one, and is slower.
    Which makes full sense. Power saving on modern CPUs is about the race-to-idle - finish tasks as fast as possible, so that the CPU can get to idle as soon as possible. The powersave governor, contrary to its name, does not save power because it makes tasks take longer to finish, which works against the race-to-idle.

    Because of clock and power gating, C-states are more important than P-states. Doesn't matter much that the performance governor keeps the CPU in the highest P-state all the time, because in deep C states the clock is gated and various parts of the CPU are power gated. Making tasks finish faster allows the CPU to spend more time in these gated C states.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    This makes no sense, Michael.

    The ACPI performance governor cannot be slower than ondemand one. It just cannot - it keeps the CPU at its highest frequency all the time.
    because it keeps the cpu cooler so "turbo boost" can be turned on more often (cpu's with boost check their temperature before "using" it)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kokoko3k View Post
    It is.
    On my atom netbook, even while idling, acpi powersave governor drains more power than the performance one, and is slower.
    using the powersave governor is not enough- you need to use something like tlp to automatically force a low max cpu frequency to maximize it's effects.

    Btw, every time i try to make a custom kernel with pstates, it crashes(as in, kernel panic so deep that i have to pull the battery) as soon as i pull the power cable- it does not like to be told what to do,apparently, so i stick with acpi.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    8

    Default intel p state

    p-state benefits mostly when thermal daemon https://github.com/01org/thermal_daemon is also available and installed, and one side-note can someone do this on a notebook/laptop?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •