Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:18:53 +0100
From:      Rui Paulo <rpaulo@lavabit.com>
To:        Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Intel TurboBoost in practice
Message-ID:  <A30A636F-E925-456E-8866-4E46B3BA367F@lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C4AF046.40507@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <4C4AF046.40507@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 24 Jul 2010, at 14:53, Alexander Motin wrote:

> Hi.
>=20
> I've make small observations of Intel TurboBoost technology under
> FreeBSD. This technology allows Intel Core i5/i7 CPUs to rise =
frequency
> of some cores if other cores are idle and power/thermal conditions
> permit. CPU core counted as idle, if it has been put into C3 or deeper
> power state (may reflect ACPI C2/C3 states). So to reach maximal
> effectiveness, some tuning may be needed.
>=20
> Here is my test case: FreeBSD 9-CURRENT on Core i5 650 CPU, 3.2GHz + =
1/2
> TurboBoost steps (+133/+266MHz) with boxed cooler at the open air. I =
was
> measuring building time of the net/mpd5 from sources, using only one =
CPU
> core (cpuset -l 0 time make).
>=20
> Untuned system (hz=3D1000):     14.15 sec
> Enabled ACPI C2 (hz=3D1000+C2): 13.85 sec
> Enabled ACPI C3 (hz=3D1000+C3): 13.91 sec
> Reduced HZ (hz=3D100):          14.16 sec
> Enabled ACPI C2 (hz=3D100+C2):  13.85 sec
> Enabled ACPI C3 (hz=3D100+C3):  13.86 sec
> Timers tuned* (hz=3D100):       14.10 sec
> Enabled ACPI C2 (hz=3D100+C2):  13.71 sec
> Enabled ACPI C3 (hz=3D100+C3):  13.73 sec
>=20
> All numbers tested few times and are repeatable up to +/-0.01sec.
>=20
> *) Timers were tuned to reduce interrupt rates and respectively =
increase
> idle cores sleep time. These lines were added to loader.conf:
> sysctl kern.eventtimer.timer1=3Di8254
> sysctl kern.eventtimer.timer2=3DNONE
> kern.eventtimer.singlemul=3D1
> kern.hz=3D"100"
>=20
> PS: In this case benefit is small, but it is the least that can be
> achieved, depending on CPU model. Some models allow frequency to be
> risen by up to 6 steps (+798MHz).

The numbers that you are showing doesn't show much difference. Have you =
tried buildworld?


>=20
> PPS: I expect even better effect achieved by further reducing =
interrupt
> rates on idle CPUs.
>=20
> --=20
> Alexander Motin
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to =
"freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>=20
> =
__________________________________________________________________________=
__________
> Use the link below to report this message as spam.
> https://lavabit.com/apps/teacher?sig=3D1225540&key=3D3283483970
> =
__________________________________________________________________________=
__________

Regards,
--
Rui Paulo





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A30A636F-E925-456E-8866-4E46B3BA367F>