Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 4.8 Intel P-State vs. CPUFreq Scaling Driver/Governor Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 4.8 Intel P-State vs. CPUFreq Scaling Driver/Governor Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 4.8 Intel P-State vs. CPUFreq Scaling Driver/Governor Benchmarks

    Given the underlying work that's been happening in the CPUFreq/scheduler area and the introduce of the new Schedutil CPUFreq governor, I decided to run some fresh performance benchmarks of P-State and CPUFreq with the different governor options when testing from a Linux 4.8 Git kernel atop the current Fedora 25 development packages and using a Core i5 Skylake processor.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23470

  • #2
    Doh, I would expect power usage stats for these.

    Comment


    • #3
      schedutil doesn't seem as a good option for now

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by arekm View Post
        Doh, I would expect power usage stats for these.
        As said in this article, my WattsUp Pro was busy on another system.
        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Not only would a power measurement be helpful, but this sort of pure benchmarking is going vertical, meaning, it doesn't run alongside the development and purpose of these schedulers, but it runs its own course and makes it less meaningful. Next to the question "How much power is saved?" should everyone also be asking "Why isn't the cpufreq performance governor the fastest in all tests?". If such questions don't get asked and answered, then nothing will stop people from asking "Are these benchmarks accurate?".

          So how come we are seeing these difference and how accurate are the results really? I cannot believe that the ondemand scheduler is beating the performance scheduler.

          I use the ondemand governor with modified settings (50% threshold with 10x down sampling factor), to get more performance from a desktop machine, while still saving a good amount of power. But such considerations make little sense with this kind of benchmarking.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by sdack View Post
            So how come we are seeing these difference and how accurate are the results really? I cannot believe that the ondemand scheduler is beating the performance scheduler.
            - The ondemand scheduler cannot beat the performance scheduler if max CPU frequency is fixed because of overclocking.

            - With boost frequencies enabled, the ondemand scheduler can beat the performance scheduler because the performance scheduler never switches to the boost frequency.

            - With boost frequencies disabled, the ondemand scheduler on AMD CPUs slows down the system by more % than the ondemand scheduler on Intel CPUs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by sdack View Post
              So how come we are seeing these difference and how accurate are the results really? I cannot believe that the ondemand scheduler is beating the performance scheduler.
              - On a notebook with an Intel Bay Trail CPU, the CPU is adjusting its frequency even if the performance scheduler is selected

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

                - The ondemand scheduler cannot beat the performance scheduler if max CPU frequency is fixed because of overclocking.

                - With boost frequencies enabled, the ondemand scheduler can beat the performance scheduler because the performance scheduler never switches to the boost frequency.

                - With boost frequencies disabled, the ondemand scheduler on AMD CPUs slows down the system by more % than the ondemand scheduler on Intel CPUs.

                - On a notebook with an Intel Bay Trail CPU, the CPU is adjusting its frequency even if the performance scheduler is selected
                A German saying I've learned when I was a young electrician said, "Wer viel misst, misst Mist." It was meant as a warning for us students to make an informed decision over what we were trying to measure and not only to measure anything and everything, because when one doesn't know what exactly it is one is measuring then one's measurement has no worth regardless of its precision.

                So how much worth do you think these benchmarks are?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

                  - On a notebook with an Intel Bay Trail CPU, the CPU is adjusting its frequency even if the performance scheduler is selected
                  Does that even eat any power, i mean Bay Trail is 10 W max... it might save exactly as much as you lose on perf, probably around 2W just there

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Seems like the "bad" performance of powersave is actually good: that means it's actually saving power by clocking the CPUs down.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X