public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] cpufreq: conservative: Fix sampling_down_factor functionality
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:22:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51358117.9060902@semaphore.gr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOh2x=m0KLbjGKvLvTH7-yQb4SU5-v=-r4Ba3LSZz=NvfvO6mg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Viresh,

On 03/05/2013 02:23 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:> Interesting. Because it was removed earlier and no body complained :)
> 
> I got following from Documentation:
> 
> sampling_down_factor: this parameter controls the rate at which the
> kernel makes a decision on when to decrease the frequency while running
> at top speed. When set to 1 (the default) decisions to reevaluate load
> are made at the same interval regardless of current clock speed. But
> when set to greater than 1 (e.g. 100) it acts as a multiplier for the
> scheduling interval for reevaluating load when the CPU is at its top
> speed due to high load. This improves performance by reducing the overhead
> of load evaluation and helping the CPU stay at its top speed when truly
> busy, rather than shifting back and forth in speed. This tunable has no
> effect on behavior at lower speeds/lower CPU loads.
> 
> And i believe we are supposed to check if we are at the top speed or not.
> Over that i believe the code should be like:
> 
> While setting speed to top speed, set the timer to delay * sampling_down_factor,
> so that we actually don't reevaluate the load. What do you say?
> 

I had the same thoughts, but I saw the comments in the code:

/*
 * Every sampling_rate, we check, if current idle time is less than 20%
 * (default), then we try to increase frequency Every sampling_rate *
 * sampling_down_factor, we check, if current idle time is more than 80%, then
 * we try to decrease frequency
 *

Also checking the code before the commit 8e677ce83bf41ba9c74e5b6d9ee60b07d4e5ed93 you may see that sampling down factor works in this way.
So, I decided to keep the original functionality (also down_skip was already there unused).

Regards,
Stratos


  reply	other threads:[~2013-03-05  5:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-04 22:14 [PATCH linux-next] cpufreq: conservative: Fix sampling_down_factor functionality Stratos Karafotis
2013-03-05  0:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-03-05  5:22   ` Stratos Karafotis [this message]
2013-03-05  7:34     ` Viresh Kumar
2013-03-05 20:15       ` Stratos Karafotis
2013-03-05 14:11     ` David C Niemi
2013-03-05 14:21       ` David C Niemi
2013-03-05 20:37         ` Stratos Karafotis
2013-03-06  6:43         ` Viresh Kumar

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=51358117.9060902@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