linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

graysky · 2011-08-21 19:50:30

Krum reported are rather significant increase in power consumption when using the linux-ck kernel vs. the linux (stock ARCH) kernel.

krum wrote:

With the last ck i7-avx, I jump from 10W (stock arch) to 15W on my laptop with the same kernel options and same usage.
I will investigate further another time...

I began to wonder just how universal this was so I tested on my own laptop (Intel T9400 @ 2.53 GHz, NVidia FX, 2x2 GB, SSD and 17" screen) booted into three different kernels, ARCH, ck-generic, and ck-core2 with the latter two downloaded from my unofficial repo. I took two readings per kernel. The first was measured with powertop on battery after letting it settle for a good 3 min of idle. The second was with the battery removed and on AC power measured with a Kill-A-Watt. My results indicate no significant differences.

linux-3.0.3-1
Powertop: 37.5
Kitt-A-Watt: 41

linux-ck-3.0.3-4
Powertop: 38.6
Kitt-A-Watt: 41

linux-ck-core2-3.0.3-4
Powertop: 37.5
Kitt-A-Watt: 40

Can others running both kernels do a similar analysis with powertop and post the results here?

karol · 2011-08-21 20:03:45

Have you seen https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=124996 ?

graysky · 2011-08-21 20:17:21

@karol - just now actually

spookyln · 2011-08-21 21:19:15

new test with update to ck-atom-3.0.3-4.
Load average is better than before. Now i see power consumption in powertop. before is 0.0 !
In generic arch is around 18.5W .now in CK is around 15-16W on same progs running.
NVidia heat is lowest too.

here is screenshot.
http://www.tbs-software.com/spookyln/pics/CK303-4.png

fsckd · 2011-08-21 21:25:09

PowerTop only,

linux 3.0.3-1 (3.0-ARCH)
Wakeups-from-idle per second : 40.9 interval: 180.0s

linux-ck-atom 3.0.3-4 (3.0-ck}
Wakeups-from-idle per second : 42.1 interval: 180.0s

Samsung NF-210, Atom N455

spookyln · 2011-08-21 22:06:28

@graysky
Just tried kernel that you compile for me.
Seems that ck-atom-3.0.3-4 is much better in load average.
ck-atom-spookyln has little more power consumption.
I tried these tests in console [powertop, htop].
Installed Nouveau and Nouveau-dri for test but 10min on my desktop with this driver and heat grow rapidly.

Im staying on ck-atom-3.0.3-4 for now.
If you need some other tests. Im ready. but not today. here is 0:05 go to sleep

graysky · 2011-08-22 19:07:55

Glad to hear it's better for you!

The count now would seem to indicate that the linux-ck package is indeed as-good or better than the stock ARCH package for power consumption.

spookyln · 2011-08-25 08:57:37

Thanks for your repo.
Today i installed ck-k8 on my old acer 3024 wlmi laptop with 512mb ram only.
Desktop latency is perfect especially if i copying some things from cdrom.

Now i tested some desktop drawing on 1201N with GtkPerf.
On same config and same apps running i get these results.

CK-ATOM
1000 loops
GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Tue Aug 23 09:38:02 2011

GtkEntry - time: 1,19
GtkComboBox - time: 23,67
GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 17,91
GtkSpinButton - time: 3,20
GtkProgressBar - time: 1,56
GtkToggleButton - time: 3,36
GtkCheckButton - time: 3,09
GtkRadioButton - time: 6,07
GtkTextView - Add text - time: 94,68
GtkTextView - Scroll - time: 16,85
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time: 19,66
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time: 19,08
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time: 11,87
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 1,80
---
Total time: 223,97

and ARCH
1000 loops
GtkEntry - time: 1,44
GtkComboBox - time: 26,74
GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 19,64
GtkSpinButton - time: 3,71
GtkProgressBar - time: 1,95
GtkToggleButton - time: 3,86
GtkCheckButton - time: 3,44
GtkRadioButton - time: 6,68
GtkTextView - Add text - time: 92,12
GtkTextView - Scroll - time: 16,00
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time: 26,42
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time: 24,09
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time: 12,96
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 2,11
---
Total time: 241,17

Theme is Fundamental.

graysky · 2011-08-25 18:50:13

The bench results don't mean too much to me; I'm more interested in your powertop idle power consumption under the linux-ck and then under linux.

spookyln · 2011-08-25 21:47:29

On CK i have 13.4W if powertop running only.
On Arch i have 13.9W.

Wake ups is 10.8 for Arch and 13.2 for CK. interval 45s
Cpu Temp is on my Atom obviously 70 on both

GPU temp is 61 on both.

Tested with openbox and powertop only.
Test run 0.5 hour on both kernels.

krum · 2011-08-28 21:00:07

Hi,

I did my test with powertop.
I got also higher temp:

[root@akira david]# uname -a && uptime && fan
Linux akira 3.0-ck #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 21 05:31:12 EDT 2011 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2620M CPU @ 2.70GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
22:20:24 up 10:26, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.07
speed: 2616
level: auto
Core 0: +47.0°C
Core 1: +42.0°C

[root@akira david]# uname -a && uptime && fan
Linux akira 3.0-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Aug 17 21:55:57 CEST 2011 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2620M CPU @ 2.70GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
22:22:52 up 2 min, 4 users, load average: 0.28, 0.19, 0.08
speed: 2630
level: auto
Core 0: +39.0°C
Core 1: +38.0°C

EDIT:

[root@akira david]# uname -a && uptime && fan
Linux akira 3.0-ck #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 21 05:31:12 EDT 2011 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2620M CPU @ 2.70GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
22:29:41 up 2 min, 4 users, load average: 0.18, 0.24, 0.10
speed: 2644
level: auto
Core 0: +40.0°C
Core 1: +35.0°C

My bad, I forget to had these kernel boot option: pcie_aspm=force i915.i915_enable_rc6=1 i915.i915_enable_fbc=1 i915.lvds_downclock=1

So it seems to be OK, I will do new powertop test when my battery will be full.

Last edited by krum (2011-08-28 21:11:47)

graysky · 2011-08-28 22:21:52

@krum - once you have a full charge, you can just edit over your post since it doesn't have the requested info.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-08-21 19:50:30

linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#2 2011-08-21 20:03:45

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#3 2011-08-21 20:17:21

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#4 2011-08-21 21:19:15

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#5 2011-08-21 21:25:09

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#6 2011-08-21 22:06:28

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#7 2011-08-22 19:07:55

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#8 2011-08-25 08:57:37

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#9 2011-08-25 18:50:13

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#10 2011-08-25 21:47:29

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#11 2011-08-28 21:00:07

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

#12 2011-08-28 22:21:52

Re: linux vs. linux-ck power usage - laptop users please post your results

Board footer