On Thursday, September 6, 2018 6:20:08 AM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Srinivas Pandruvada [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

=20
This patch causes a number of statistically significant
regressions
(with significance of 1%) on the two systems I've tested it
on.  On
my

=20
Sure. These patches are targeted to Atom clients where some of
these
server like workload may have some minor regression on few watts
TDP
parts.

=20
Neither the 36% regression of fs-mark, the 21% regression of sqlite,
nor
the 10% regression of warsaw qualify as small.  And most of the test
cases on the list of regressions aren't exclusively server-like, if
at
all.  Warsaw, gtkperf, jxrendermark and lightsmark are all graphics
benchmarks -- Latency is as important if not more for interactive
workloads than it is for server workloads.  In the case of a conflict
like the one we're dealing with right now between optimizing for
throughput (e.g. for the maximum number of requests per second) and
optimizing for latency (e.g. for the minimum request duration), you
are
more likely to be concerned about the former than about the latter in
a
server setup.

Eero,
Please add your test results here.

No matter which algorithm you do, there will be variations. So you have
to look at the platforms which you are targeting. For this platform=20
number one item is use of less turbo and hope you know why?

Unfortunately the current controller uses turbo frequently on Atoms for
TDP-limited graphics workloads regardless of IOWAIT boosting.  IOWAIT
boosting simply exacerbated the pre-existing energy efficiency problem.

My current understanding of the issue at hand is that using IOWAIT boosting
on Atoms is a regression relative to the previous behavior.  That is what
Srinivas is trying to address here AFAICS.

Now, you seem to be saying that the overall behavior is suboptimal and the
IOWAIT boosting doesn't matter that much, so some deeper changes are needed
anyway.  That may be the case, but if there is a meaningful regression, we
should first get back to the point where it is not present and then to take
care of the more general problems.

So, I'd like to understand how much of a problem the IOWAIT boosting really is
in the first place.  If it is significant enough, let's address it first, this
way or another, and move on to the other problems subsequently.

Thanks,
Rafael