All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] cpufreq: conservative: Fix sampling_down_factor functionality
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:22:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51358117.9060902@semaphore.gr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOh2x=m0KLbjGKvLvTH7-yQb4SU5-v=-r4Ba3LSZz=NvfvO6mg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Viresh,

On 03/05/2013 02:23 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:> Interesting. Because it was removed earlier and no body complained :)
> 
> I got following from Documentation:
> 
> sampling_down_factor: this parameter controls the rate at which the
> kernel makes a decision on when to decrease the frequency while running
> at top speed. When set to 1 (the default) decisions to reevaluate load
> are made at the same interval regardless of current clock speed. But
> when set to greater than 1 (e.g. 100) it acts as a multiplier for the
> scheduling interval for reevaluating load when the CPU is at its top
> speed due to high load. This improves performance by reducing the overhead
> of load evaluation and helping the CPU stay at its top speed when truly
> busy, rather than shifting back and forth in speed. This tunable has no
> effect on behavior at lower speeds/lower CPU loads.
> 
> And i believe we are supposed to check if we are at the top speed or not.
> Over that i believe the code should be like:
> 
> While setting speed to top speed, set the timer to delay * sampling_down_factor,
> so that we actually don't reevaluate the load. What do you say?
> 

I had the same thoughts, but I saw the comments in the code:

/*
 * Every sampling_rate, we check, if current idle time is less than 20%
 * (default), then we try to increase frequency Every sampling_rate *
 * sampling_down_factor, we check, if current idle time is more than 80%, then
 * we try to decrease frequency
 *

Also checking the code before the commit 8e677ce83bf41ba9c74e5b6d9ee60b07d4e5ed93 you may see that sampling down factor works in this way.
So, I decided to keep the original functionality (also down_skip was already there unused).

Regards,
Stratos


  reply	other threads:[~2013-03-05  5:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-04 22:14 [PATCH linux-next] cpufreq: conservative: Fix sampling_down_factor functionality Stratos Karafotis
2013-03-05  0:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-03-05  5:22   ` Stratos Karafotis [this message]
2013-03-05  7:34     ` Viresh Kumar
2013-03-05 20:15       ` Stratos Karafotis
2013-03-05 14:11     ` David C Niemi
2013-03-05 14:21       ` David C Niemi
2013-03-05 20:37         ` Stratos Karafotis
2013-03-06  6:43         ` Viresh Kumar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=51358117.9060902@semaphore.gr \
    --to=stratosk@semaphore.gr \
    --cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.