125 строки
4.6 KiB
Plaintext
125 строки
4.6 KiB
Plaintext
|
This is cpufreq-bench, a microbenchmark for the cpufreq framework.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Purpose
|
||
|
|
=======
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
What is this benchmark for:
|
||
|
|
- Identify worst case performance loss when doing dynamic frequency
|
||
|
|
scaling using Linux kernel governors
|
||
|
|
- Identify average reaction time of a governor to CPU load changes
|
||
|
|
- (Stress) Testing whether a cpufreq low level driver or governor works
|
||
|
|
as expected
|
||
|
|
- Identify cpufreq related performance regressions between kernels
|
||
|
|
- Possibly Real time priority testing? -> what happens if there are
|
||
|
|
processes with a higher prio than the governor's kernel thread
|
||
|
|
- ...
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
What this benchmark does *not* cover:
|
||
|
|
- Power saving related regressions (In fact as better the performance
|
||
|
|
throughput is, the worse the power savings will be, but the first should
|
||
|
|
mostly count more...)
|
||
|
|
- Real world (workloads)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Description
|
||
|
|
===========
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
cpufreq-bench helps to test the condition of a given cpufreq governor.
|
||
|
|
For that purpose, it compares the performance governor to a configured
|
||
|
|
powersave module.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
How it works
|
||
|
|
============
|
||
|
|
You can specify load (100% CPU load) and sleep (0% CPU load) times in us which
|
||
|
|
will be run X time in a row (cycles):
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
sleep=25000
|
||
|
|
load=25000
|
||
|
|
cycles=20
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This part of the configuration file will create 25ms load/sleep turns,
|
||
|
|
repeated 20 times.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Adding this:
|
||
|
|
sleep_step=25000
|
||
|
|
load_step=25000
|
||
|
|
rounds=5
|
||
|
|
Will increase load and sleep time by 25ms 5 times.
|
||
|
|
Together you get following test:
|
||
|
|
25ms load/sleep time repeated 20 times (cycles).
|
||
|
|
50ms load/sleep time repeated 20 times (cycles).
|
||
|
|
..
|
||
|
|
100ms load/sleep time repeated 20 times (cycles).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
First it is calibrated how long a specific CPU intensive calculation
|
||
|
|
takes on this machine and needs to be run in a loop using the performance
|
||
|
|
governor.
|
||
|
|
Then the above test runs are processed using the performance governor
|
||
|
|
and the governor to test. The time the calculation really needed
|
||
|
|
with the dynamic freq scaling governor is compared with the time needed
|
||
|
|
on full performance and you get the overall performance loss.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Example of expected results with ondemand governor:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This shows expected results of the first two test run rounds from
|
||
|
|
above config, you there have:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
100% CPU load (load) | 0 % CPU load (sleep) | round
|
||
|
|
25 ms | 25 ms | 1
|
||
|
|
50 ms | 50 ms | 2
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
For example if ondemand governor is configured to have a 50ms
|
||
|
|
sampling rate you get:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In round 1, ondemand should have rather static 50% load and probably
|
||
|
|
won't ever switch up (as long as up_threshold is above).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In round 2, if the ondemand sampling times exactly match the load/sleep
|
||
|
|
trigger of the cpufreq-bench, you will see no performance loss (compare with
|
||
|
|
below possible ondemand sample kick ins (1)):
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
But if ondemand always kicks in in the middle of the load sleep cycles, it
|
||
|
|
will always see 50% loads and you get worst performance impact never
|
||
|
|
switching up (compare with below possible ondemand sample kick ins (2))::
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
50 50 50 50ms ->time
|
||
|
|
load -----| |-----| |-----| |-----|
|
||
|
|
| | | | | | |
|
||
|
|
sleep |-----| |-----| |-----| |----
|
||
|
|
|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---- ondemand sampling (1)
|
||
|
|
100 0 100 0 100 0 100 load seen by ondemand(%)
|
||
|
|
|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-- ondemand sampling (2)
|
||
|
|
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 load seen by ondemand(%)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
You can easily test all kind of load/sleep times and check whether your
|
||
|
|
governor in average behaves as expected.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
ToDo
|
||
|
|
====
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Provide a gnuplot utility script for easy generation of plots to present
|
||
|
|
the outcome nicely.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
cpufreq-bench Command Usage
|
||
|
|
===========================
|
||
|
|
-l, --load=<long int> initial load time in us
|
||
|
|
-s, --sleep=<long int> initial sleep time in us
|
||
|
|
-x, --load-step=<long int> time to be added to load time, in us
|
||
|
|
-y, --sleep-step=<long int> time to be added to sleep time, in us
|
||
|
|
-c, --cpu=<unsigned int> CPU Number to use, starting at 0
|
||
|
|
-p, --prio=<priority> scheduler priority, HIGH, LOW or DEFAULT
|
||
|
|
-g, --governor=<governor> cpufreq governor to test
|
||
|
|
-n, --cycles=<int> load/sleep cycles to get an avarage value to compare
|
||
|
|
-r, --rounds<int> load/sleep rounds
|
||
|
|
-f, --file=<configfile> config file to use
|
||
|
|
-o, --output=<dir> output dir, must exist
|
||
|
|
-v, --verbose verbose output on/off
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Due to the high priority, the application may not be responsible for some time.
|
||
|
|
After the benchmark, the logfile is saved in OUTPUTDIR/benchmark_TIMESTAMP.log
|
||
|
|
|