From: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:12:22 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51ACC066.1010902@semaphore.gr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKohpomLkogSHD+5Wobb34qHPnb7_vWE1Xz4K5MD=Q50kOpfuA@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/03/2013 02:24 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 3 June 2013 16:27, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>> The question is if we want policy->max to re-scale them effectively (i.e. to
>> change weights so that the maximum load maps to the highest frequency available
>> at the moment) or if we want policy->max to work as a cap (i.e. to map all
>> loads above certain value to the maximum frequency available at the moment, so
>> that the criteria for selecting the lower frequencies don't change). In my
>> opinion the second option is better, because it means "OK, we can't use some
>> high frequencies, but let's not hurt performance for the loads that wouldn't
>> require them anyway". Otherwise, we'll effectively throttle all loads and
>> that not only causes performance to drop, but also causes more energy to be
>> used overall.
>
> I wouldn't say that I don't agree with you as I do to some extent.
>
> But the question that comes to my mind now is: Why is policy->max reduced
> in the first place? User doesn't have control over which freqs to expose, so
> available_frequencies will stay the same. The only thing he is capable
> of doing is: reduce policy->max.. Which in a way means that.. "I don't want to
> use higher frequencies (power, thermal reasons) and I know performance will
> go down with it and I don't care for it now."
>
> And this way I feel policy->max isn't a bad choice either.
>
> BUT as you said: policy->max isn't there to say don't be so aggressive now in
> increasing frequencies but just only to say, don't go over this frequency..
>
> So, probably we can use cpuinfo.max_freq :)
>
Both of you know better than me, but I also believe that cpuinfo.max is more
appropriate. Although, the decision was taken, let me share a spreadsheet to show
the 2 cases.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnMfNYUV1k0ddHh1OUFXa0kxcGZJaXd4am1sdmVWT0E&usp=sharing
I will prepare the v2 of this patch that uses cpuinfo.max_freq instead of policy-max.
Also, I will split the patch into 3 parts as suggested.
Thank you for your comments and suggestions!
Stratos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-03 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-30 21:07 [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency Stratos Karafotis
2013-05-31 8:51 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-05-31 16:33 ` Stratos Karafotis
2013-06-01 12:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-01 12:50 ` Stratos Karafotis
2013-06-01 14:56 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-06-01 16:06 ` Stratos Karafotis
2013-06-03 6:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-06-01 19:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-03 6:51 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-06-03 6:55 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-06-03 10:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-03 11:24 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-06-03 16:12 ` Stratos Karafotis [this message]
2013-06-03 10:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-05-31 8:54 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-05-31 12:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=51ACC066.1010902@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.