From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: dt: Set default policy->transition_delay_ns Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:52:53 +0200 Message-ID: <3617293.cCXa2uXImB@aspire.rjw.lan> References: <16157eb75bb26cca73a0da930e49f2549b96fd65.1495429745.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20170628041455.GE29665@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:48270 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751501AbdF1VAW (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:00:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170628041455.GE29665@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Leo Yan , Brendan Jackman , Lists linaro-kernel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Amit Kucheria On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 09:44:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 27-06-17, 18:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > @Rafael: Will it be fine to lower down the value of LATENCY_MULTIPLIER? > > > > We can do that, but then I think we need to compensate for the change > > in the old governors code or there may be surprises. > > Why shouldn't we change the value of LATENCY_MULTIPLIER for old > governors as well? They use the same calculations and the sampling > rate there is also this bad (like rate_limit_us). On some systems. On other systems it isn't. > If we aren't going to change that for old governors, then we can > create a local version of LATENCY_MULTIPLIER for schedutil I believe. OK, so at least for intel_pstate and acpi-cpufreq we want a 10 ms default which is what we have currently. If you want to rework all that, make sure you preserve that. Thanks, Rafael