Re: cpufreq on-demand governor up_treshold?

[Eric Piel <Eric.Piel@tremplin-utc.net>]

Eric Piel a écrit :
> Dave Jones a écrit :
> 
>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:33:34PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>>  >  > I'm preparing the first cpufreq->linus sync right now.
>>  > Can you write up some descriptions & signed-off-by: lines for
>>  > these three please ?
>>
>> Additionally, it'll need tweaking to diff on top of whats
>> currently in the pending queue. looks like the patch at
>> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/projects/cpufreq/pending-patches/CPUFREQ-04-ondemand-cleanups.patch 
>>
>> upsets yours a little.
>>
> Here follows the three patches, updated for the last snapshot of 
> cpufreq. I knew there was a conflict (CPUFREQ-04 is also a patch I wrote 
> ;-) ) but was too lasy to resend them. Here you are!
> 
Hi Dave,

I've just noticed that while I was rediffiing the patches, you had 
integrated the 3 patches of Alexander for the ondemand governor... which 
conflict with mine!

Concerning CPUFREQ-17-ondemand-ignore-nice.patch, it'll just require 
rediffing again my patches, that's easy.

CPUFREQ-18-ondemand-check-rate-and-break-out.patch is in part also 
available in "automatic-downscaling". I hadn't integrated the break if 
the cpu frequency is max because it seemed that resetting the values for 
down frequency is necessary all the time (maybe Venki can confirm?). So 
I would recommand discarding it and just using "automatic-downscaling".

Finally, CPUFREQ-19-ondemand-sys_freq_step.patch brings a feature which 
is probably not needed anymore if you use the "automatic downscaling" 
(this can be argued though). I'd discard it too.

Please, let me know what you are planning to do. If you agree I can 
simply send you my 3 patches against the 20050511 tree minus CPUFREQ-18 
and CPUFREQ-19. IMHO, this would put the ondemand governor in the best 
shape.

Eric