From: Felix Braun <Felix.Braun@mail.mcgill.ca>
To: CPUFreq@lists.linux.org.uk
Subject: [PATCH 2.6.14 1/2] cpufreq_conservative units weirdness
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:59:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051202135956.5d7299c1@tilion.getrex.org> (raw)
Hi there,
I've recently been looking through the cpufreq_conservative driver (mainly
because I thought that it was adapting awfully slowly to the changes in my
load. It seems to me that there is some confusion regarding the units of
transition_latency (in nS) and the sampling_rate (in uS).
At least the comments don't seem to match my understanding of what the
code is doing. I have always used the term "sampling rate" to describe a
frequency, i.e. higher sampling rate means more samples per second. The
way it is used in the code, sampling_rate describes a sampling interval,
i.e. higher sampling_rate means fewer samples.
This first patch is supposed to change the comments to describe, what is
actually going on.
------
Make the comments describe what the code actually does.
Signed-off-by: Felix Braun <Felix.Braun@mail.McGill.ca>
----
diff -ruN a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c 2005-10-28 10:42:33.000000000 +0200
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c 2005-12-02 13:19:48.000000000 +0100
@@ -44,10 +44,11 @@
/*
* The polling frequency of this governor depends on the capability of
- * the processor. Default polling frequency is 1000 times the transition
+ * the processor. Default polling frequency is 100000 times the transition
* latency of the processor. The governor will work on any processor with
- * transition latency <= 10mS, using appropriate sampling
- * rate.
+ * transition latency <= 10mS, using an appropriate sampling interval.
+ * The "sampling_rate" used is actually a sampling interval. This means that
+ * CPU speed is adjusted more often if this number is lower.
* For CPUs with transition latency > 10mS (mostly drivers with CPUFREQ_ETERNAL)
* this governor will not work.
* All times here are in uS.
@@ -324,15 +325,14 @@
/*
* The default safe range is 20% to 80%
- * Every sampling_rate, we check
+ * Every sampling_rate microseconds, we check
* - If current idle time is less than 20%, then we try to
* increase frequency
- * Every sampling_rate*sampling_down_factor, we check
+ * Every sampling_rate*sampling_down_factor microseconds, we check
* - If current idle time is more than 80%, then we try to
* decrease frequency
*
- * Any frequency increase takes it to the maximum frequency.
- * Frequency reduction happens at minimum steps of
+ * Any frequency change (both up and down) happens at minimum steps of
* 5% (default) of max_frequency
*/
diff -ruN a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c 2005-12-02 13:28:39.000000000 +0100
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c 2005-12-02 13:25:31.000000000 +0100
@@ -41,8 +41,9 @@
* The polling frequency of this governor depends on the capability of
* the processor. Default polling frequency is 1000 times the transition
* latency of the processor. The governor will work on any processor with
- * transition latency <= 10mS, using appropriate sampling
- * rate.
+ * transition latency <= 10mS, using appropriate sampling interval.
+ * The "sampling_rate" used is actually a sampling interval. This means that
+ * CPU speed is adjusted more often if this number is lower.
* For CPUs with transition latency > 10mS (mostly drivers with CPUFREQ_ETERNAL)
* this governor will not work.
* All times here are in uS.
@@ -256,9 +257,9 @@
policy = this_dbs_info->cur_policy;
/*
- * Every sampling_rate, we check, if current idle time is less
+ * Every sampling_rate uS, we check, if current idle time is less
* than 20% (default), then we try to increase frequency
- * Every sampling_rate*sampling_down_factor, we look for a the lowest
+ * Every sampling_rate*sampling_down_factor uS, we look for a the lowest
* frequency which can sustain the load while keeping idle time over
* 30%. If such a frequency exist, we try to decrease to this frequency.
*
next reply other threads:[~2005-12-02 12:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-02 12:59 Felix Braun [this message]
2005-12-02 13:25 ` [PATCH 2.6.14 2/2] cpufreq_conservative units weirdness Felix Braun
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=20051202135956.5d7299c1@tilion.getrex.org \
--to=felix.braun@mail.mcgill.ca \
--cc=CPUFreq@lists.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox