From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David C Niemi Subject: Re: Issues with ondemand governor Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:16:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4CF3C3B4.3000209@verisign.com> References: <4CEA959F.9000505@verisign.com> <20101126223815.GU30563@anthem.async.com.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101126223815.GU30563@anthem.async.com.br> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Christian Robottom Reis Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Vishwanath Sripathy , linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org I certainly have no objections to it going into the Linaro tree, though I was hoping to get it into the main kernel tree too. DCN Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:09:03AM -0500, David C Niemi wrote: > >> The general problem here is that the ondemand governor is aimed more at >> power savings than performance. In cases where the ondemand governor >> performs worse than the performance governor, the "sampling_down_factor" >> tunable is often useful. I submitted the patch to add this tunable a >> few weeks ago and it was acked by Venki, but I don't know what happened >> to it after that. >> > > Would you like to get it merged into linux-linaro? Given it's been ack'd > I think Nicolas might be willing to consider it: > > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2010/10/6/4628889/thread >