From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 23 12:40:02 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16D6106566B for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:40:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7659D8FC1B for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:40:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o8NCe2HN010670 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:40:02 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o8NCe2eo010669; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:40:02 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:40:02 GMT Message-Id: <201009231240.o8NCe2eo010669@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org From: Alexander Motin Cc: Subject: Re: i386/135447: [i386] [request] Intel Core i7 and Nehalem-EP new features not supported X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alexander Motin List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:40:02 -0000 The following reply was made to PR i386/135447; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Alexander Motin To: Dmitry Kubov Cc: Andriy Gapon , jh@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup Subject: Re: i386/135447: [i386] [request] Intel Core i7 and Nehalem-EP new features not supported Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:34:23 +0300 Dmitry Kubov wrote: >> It would be >> interesting to repeat same test if you updated to 8-STABLE or at least >> apply patch from SVN rev 209897 on 2010-07-11 11:58:46Z. > > New system: > CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5680 @ 3.33GHz (3333.47-MHz > K8-class CPU) > FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 12 CPUs > FreeBSD/SMP: 2 package(s) x 6 core(s) > HT disabled in BIOS. This CPU has only 266MHz TurboBoost speedup. And some part of it (probably half) could be enabled all the time. This benefit still could be overweighted by C-states latencies penalty. It could be interesting to test some other workloads, like compilation with different number of threads. > Note 3333/3334 difference: > TurboBoost disabled: > dev.cpu.0.freq: 3333 > dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 3333/130000 3200/117000 3067/105000 2933/94000 > 2800/85000 > 2667/76000 2533/68000 2400/61000 2267/54000 2133/48000 2000/43000 > 1867/39000 17 > 33/35000 1600/32000 1400/28000 1200/24000 1000/20000 800/16000 600/12000 > 400/8000 200/4000 > dev.est.0.freq_settings: 3333/130000 3200/117000 3067/105000 2933/94000 > 2800/850 > 00 2667/76000 2533/68000 2400/61000 2267/54000 2133/48000 2000/43000 > 1867/39000 1733/35000 1600/32000 > > TurboBoost enabled: > dev.cpu.0.freq: 3334 > dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 3334/143000 3200/117000 3067/105000 2933/94000 > 2800/85000 > 2667/76000 2533/68000 2400/61000 2267/54000 2133/48000 2000/43000 > 1867/39000 17 > 33/35000 1600/32000 1400/28000 1200/24000 1000/20000 800/16000 600/12000 > 400/8000 200/4000 > dev.est.0.freq_settings: 3334/143000 3333/130000 3200/117000 3067/105000 > 2933/94 > 000 2800/85000 2667/76000 2533/68000 2400/61000 2267/54000 2133/48000 > 2000/43000 1867/39000 1733/35000 1600/32000 Intel writes that BIOS may report additional P-state with 1MHz difference, to allow OS to control TurboBoost. It's just cpufreq subsystem behavior/limitation to drop very close frequencies. Actually I am not sure how this additional P-state could be used, except for testing. > In short: no 60% disk io performance drop in 8.1-STABLE. Other tests > give same results like 8.1-RELEASE, 5% average cpu performance drop. Disk performance fix is reasonable. Some recent improvements in 9-CURRENT should improve it even more. What's about ubench - try some different load. -- Alexander Motin