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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).