From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stratos Karafotis Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] cpufreq: conservative: Fix sampling_down_factor functionality Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 22:15:03 +0200 Message-ID: <51365247.5030005@semaphore.gr> References: <51351CC3.4010301@semaphore.gr> <51358117.9060902@semaphore.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 03/05/2013 09:34 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 5 March 2013 13:22, Stratos Karafotis wrote: > I misread it here when i looked at this mail for the first time. :) > I strongly believe that we need a full stop (.) before "Every sampling_rate", > otherwise it looks like we check for down_factor while increasing freq :) I agree. I will do that. > Even now we aren't checking this 80% thing, right? And so in your patch we can > actually fix the patch too with the right logic of code.. And > documentation too :) In my opinion the logic was initially correct. It was broken in the same commit that broke also sampling_down_factor. Now we check if load < (cs_tuners.down_threshold - 10) to decrease freq. Down threshold is 20, so we actually check the 80% idle. I think the subtraction of 10 from down_threshold is wrong. It seems similar with ondemand but there is no logic for this in conservative. User can simply select the down_threshold and the load will be compared with user's value. No need to alter user's selection. I will prepare a patchset for these changes. Regards, Stratos