On Sat, 2016-04-09 at 14:33 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 22:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 08, 2016 08:50:54 AM Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 08:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Cute, I thought you used governor=performance for your runs?
> > > >
> > > > I do, and those numbers are with it thus set.
> > >
> > > Well, this is a trade-off.
> > >
> > > 4.5 introduced a power regression here so this one goes back to the
> > > previous
> > > state of things.
> >
> > That sounds somewhat reasonable. Too bad I don't have a super duper
> > watt meter handy.. seeing that you really really are saving me money
> > would perhaps make me less fond of those prettier numbers.
>
> You can look at the turbostat Watts numbers ("turbostat --debug" and
> the last three columns of the output in turbostat as included in the
> kernel source).
Hm. I think I want my prettier numbers back.
714KHz/877KHz = 0.81
25Watt/30Watt = 0.83
-Mike
