From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4308A323 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:38:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE54025D for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1437161902.14756.15.camel@linux.intel.com> From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com To: Kristen Accardi , Chris Mason , David Woodhouse Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:38:22 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <20150715153725.GA12601@ret.masoncoding.com> <1436989195.6856.4.camel@infradead.org> <20150715195837.GA14507@ret.masoncoding.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] benchmarking and performance trends List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 20:32 +0000, Kristen Accardi wrote: > > It would be fun to use turbostat or a rack power meter to > > measure/compare power usage between two kernels in a given > > benchmark. I > > think the power meters we do have are not going to be fine grained > > enough to give valid results, but if turbostat is consistent enough > > we > > could try it. Yes, this is what we are trying to build/automate. Run power-aware server benchmarks, before and after a kernel patch(es), compare, tell the delta in a smart and easy to interpret way. Power is measured with a real power meter. The project is internal so far. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy