[RFC PATCH] Increase in idle power with schedutil
lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com
Mon May 23 19:00:04 AEST 2016
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 01:42:52PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:39:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:53:41PM +0530, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
> > >
> > > Below are the comparisons by disabling watchdog.
> > > Both schedutil and ondemand have a similar ramp-down trend. And in both the
> > > cases I can see that frequency of the cpu is not reduced in deterministic
> > > fashion. In a observation window of 30 seconds after running a workload I can
> > > see that the frequency is not ramped down on some cpus in the system and are
> > > idling at max frequency.
> > So does it actually matter what the frequency is when you idle? Isn't
> > the whole thing clock gated anyway?
> > Because this seems to generate contradictory requirements, on the one
> > hand we want to stay idle as long as possible while on the other hand
> > you seem to want to clock down while idle, which requires not being
> > idle.
> > If it matters; should not your idle state muck explicitly set/restore
> > frequency?
> AFAIK this is very platform dependent. Some will waste more power than
> others when a CPU idles above fmin due to things like resource (bus
> bandwidth, shared cache freq etc) voting.
It is also related to static leakage power that depends on the operating
voltage (ie higher operating frequencies require higher voltage) so in a
way scaling frequency before going idle may not be effective if voltage
does not scale too in turn.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev