From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 19 05:25:12 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A57106566C for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 05:25:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mavbsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F648FC08 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 05:25:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz15 with SMTP id 15so4713321bwz.13 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:25:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xMybVCibL2snLqotz8+kk6pDRK5QTkIlB2WQromUjXc=; b=JlfSnBTju+5TilrPuVTK2nypLkdpC6BowZ8nl/SRnBUQqCjhUT3UbNQiD3q/4n70wp hlWf32ZZyfeuTTExlg3UBIg2Kwlb5DuUBdAyNGqUbZMpx43Pebw8M13wB2XAORDIlh3F wDpAK7ZwGGclrb4Ne5yvCjyRw6cumGGHOhlNA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=MO31YJVWVrxUKo9Ocu4uBLArHKHjdm6KsJD7A00zbC5QjQOMa4hUGA8HD2xRJzPciB X6Sn3W4X7pZhFLofM0LmQWW3hc1T/6LqKrjfK1TfEaGNqKS7erKWjVDuIT7khkskHF/g zcnm4V0ewxPSRUx1iIGi5iqErxTRlFtT4tmuw= Received: by 10.204.6.75 with SMTP id 11mr5455506bky.95.1284872244791; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mavbook.mavhome.dp.ua (pc.mavhome.dp.ua [212.86.226.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f18sm5250825bkf.3.2010.09.18.21.57.22 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Alexander Motin Message-ID: <4C959830.3060808@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:57:20 +0300 From: Alexander Motin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100402) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <4C4AF046.40507@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4C4AF046.40507@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:42:14 +0000 Subject: Re: Intel TurboBoost in practice X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 05:25:12 -0000 Getting back to that topic I would like to share some more results. This time I was testing Core(TM) i7 870 @ 2.93GHz. It has 8 logical cores and bigger allowed TurboBoost effect. I was testing real time of net/mpd5 port building, using single CPU. I was testing it with HZ=1000 with different C-states allowed and with/without kern.eventtimer.idletick sysctl enabled (supported by the latest event timer code in HEAD). This sysctl, when disabled, allows to avoid most of timer interrupts on idle cores, allowing them to sleep deeper. Here is results: x C1i + C2i * C3i % C1 # C2 @ C3 +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | @ | | # O ** + % xx | |##@O@ + ** + %%% xx | |##@O@ + ** +++ %%% xx x| | |_A_| | | |___A__M_| | | A| | | |A | ||A_| | | |A| | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ N Min Max Median Avg Stddev x 8 12.01 12.14 12.02 12.03125 0.04421942 + 8 11.45 11.68 11.67 11.61125 0.097897541 Difference at 95.0% confidence -0.42 +/- 0.0814651 -3.49091% +/- 0.677113% (Student's t, pooled s = 0.0759582) * 8 11.51 11.54 11.52 11.52375 0.011877349 Difference at 95.0% confidence -0.5075 +/- 0.0347234 -4.21818% +/- 0.28861% (Student's t, pooled s = 0.0323761) % 8 11.9 11.93 11.92 11.915 0.011952286 Difference at 95.0% confidence -0.11625 +/- 0.0347382 -0.966234% +/- 0.288733% (Student's t, pooled s = 0.0323899) # 8 10.72 10.79 10.73 10.74875 0.031819805 Difference at 95.0% confidence -1.2825 +/- 0.0413146 -10.6597% +/- 0.343394% (Student's t, pooled s = 0.0385218) @ 8 10.76 10.8 10.79 10.785 0.014142136 Difference at 95.0% confidence -1.24625 +/- 0.035208 -10.3584% +/- 0.292638% (Student's t, pooled s = 0.032828) As you may see, with full timer interrupt rate TurboBoost effect (part of it, that enabled by some number of idle cores) is about 3-4%. CPUs are not sleeping long enough. But without extra interrupts on idle cores effect increasing to more then 10%! -- Alexander Motin From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 20 15:56:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4117E106566B for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:56:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAFB8FC1E for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:56:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OxiV8-00087m-IM for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:41:54 +0200 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:41:54 +0200 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:41:54 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:41:50 +0200 Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <4C4AF046.40507@FreeBSD.org> <4C959830.3060808@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100518 Thunderbird/3.0.4 In-Reply-To: <4C959830.3060808@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Subject: Re: Intel TurboBoost in practice X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:56:56 -0000 On 09/19/10 06:57, Alexander Motin wrote: > Getting back to that topic I would like to share some more results. This > time I was testing Core(TM) i7 870 @ 2.93GHz. It has 8 logical cores and > bigger allowed TurboBoost effect. I was testing real time of net/mpd5 > port building, using single CPU. I was testing it with HZ=1000 with > different C-states allowed and with/without kern.eventtimer.idletick > sysctl enabled (supported by the latest event timer code in HEAD). This > sysctl, when disabled, allows to avoid most of timer interrupts on idle > cores, allowing them to sleep deeper. If I understand correctly, TurboBoost is supposed to increase the frequency of one or a small number of cores only? What is the physical increase in frequency on this CPU when TurboBoost is enabled? > As you may see, with full timer interrupt rate TurboBoost effect (part > of it, that enabled by some number of idle cores) is about 3-4%. CPUs > are not sleeping long enough. But without extra interrupts on idle cores > effect increasing to more then 10%! Is this interpretation correct: when building with single core (-j1 effectively), using TurboBoost with the new code is >10% faster than without TurboBoost? Does it have any effect if you try using all the cores? From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 20 17:16:42 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594D61065670; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:16:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mavbsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9BB28FC14; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz15 with SMTP id 15so5730777bwz.13 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I+EMCmbrL+KPBVu6WqIKYtJAMQbL6dFzWtPuDYQpuEU=; b=IzoJfPo1q2x6iFqvQVtyVHpHzBJMXUVftg4uFVx8zMNMA90ftGp7X7mdPFS/UFM4Kj 4+UN//8VVygSdKA7nwu5d1ku3Km7OHNdJF2jxaedL6rqduxJF7bp/fIVDwUzsQQT1F4v b591LsJExcFVEt1OaRCPFby8ND5ul1xspWPe0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=KmjuxhhEDJP8O/s0OK/gPduhU7ZdoJjRV0Om3+Cz6dWhxxKExwOjID9NahrJS9pDC7 mkxXoVn1109ZVt6LO7ywBYQzgnY8BjEM9icUp9ja6fxM0Ovnz5fpIOH90YT731XM85GF 8lN1bCxNWYweG82/QI7njhUD3Cwu6GAyXs6Ws= Received: by 10.204.55.211 with SMTP id v19mr6894319bkg.153.1285003000155; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mavbook2.mavhome.dp.ua (pc.mavhome.dp.ua [212.86.226.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f10sm6715386bkl.5.2010.09.20.10.16.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Alexander Motin Message-ID: <4C9796F0.5050409@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:16:32 +0300 From: Alexander Motin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091212) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Voras References: <4C959830.3060808@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:26:07 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel TurboBoost in practice X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:16:42 -0000 Ivan Voras wrote: > On 09/19/10 06:57, Alexander Motin wrote: >> Getting back to that topic I would like to share some more results. This >> time I was testing Core(TM) i7 870 @ 2.93GHz. It has 8 logical cores and >> bigger allowed TurboBoost effect. I was testing real time of net/mpd5 >> port building, using single CPU. I was testing it with HZ=1000 with >> different C-states allowed and with/without kern.eventtimer.idletick >> sysctl enabled (supported by the latest event timer code in HEAD). This >> sysctl, when disabled, allows to avoid most of timer interrupts on idle >> cores, allowing them to sleep deeper. > > If I understand correctly, TurboBoost is supposed to increase the > frequency of one or a small number of cores only? In present CPUs, depending on model, it can slightly (133/266MHz) increase frequency of all cores if temperature and power permit. But if some cores are idle - active ones can rise frequency much higher (on some low-frequency CPU models almost twice). > What is the physical increase in frequency on this CPU when TurboBoost > is enabled? On my Core i7 870 @ 2.93GHz it is +266MHz if all cores are active, or +533MHz if two physical cores are idle, or +666MHz if three physical cores are idle. >> As you may see, with full timer interrupt rate TurboBoost effect (part >> of it, that enabled by some number of idle cores) is about 3-4%. CPUs >> are not sleeping long enough. But without extra interrupts on idle cores >> effect increasing to more then 10%! > > Is this interpretation correct: when building with single core (-j1 > effectively), using TurboBoost with the new code is >10% faster than > without TurboBoost? Yes. If compare to system with TurboBoost disabled completely, difference should be even bigger. As I've said above, some part of TurboBoost benefit obtained even with untuned system. But specially tuned system (with new code and enabled C2/C3) on my CPU in my cooling condition obtains additional 10% from it. > Does it have any effect if you try using all the cores? If all cores are busy, the only possible TurboBoost effect is +266MHz and only until CPU get hot or start consume more power then it's TDP permits. -- Alexander Motin From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 20 18:14:27 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238ED1065672; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:14:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from asmtpout026.mac.com (asmtpout026.mac.com [17.148.16.101]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9B48FC1A; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:14:26 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from cswiger1.apple.com ([17.209.4.71]) by asmtp026.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0L9200JKJ2JA5N50@asmtp026.mac.com>; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:13:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1004200000 definitions=main-1009200086 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.0.10011,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2010-09-20_11:2010-09-20, 2010-09-20, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 From: Chuck Swiger In-reply-to: Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:13:58 -0700 Message-id: <24B6979E-505D-436E-AAC0-D20516C14F5D@mac.com> References: <4C4AF046.40507@FreeBSD.org> <4C959830.3060808@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Voras X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel TurboBoost in practice X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:14:27 -0000 On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: [ ... ] > If I understand correctly, TurboBoost is supposed to increase the frequency of one or a small number of cores only? > > What is the physical increase in frequency on this CPU when TurboBoost is enabled? It depends on how many cores are active, but it should vary between 3.2 GHz and 3.6 GHz if thermal requirements stay OK. Two pages here have a good description: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/4 http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/5 Regards, -- -Chuck