Re: [PATCH 2/3 linux-next] cpufreq: conservative: Fix the logic in frequency decrease checking

[David C Niemi <dniemi@verisign.com>]

The "10" sounds like an attempt to add some hysteresis to the up/down decisionmaking.  If you take it out, you should make sure you don't get into situations where you're continually switching rapidly between two frequencies.  (In the ondemand governor some care was also taken to avoid the cost of doing a CPU idleness evaluation counting towards the CPU looking busy enough to upshift; I am not familiar enough with Conservative to know whether that is a problem for it too).

DCN

On 03/05/13 17:06, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> When we evaluate the CPU load for frequency decrease we have to compare
> the load against down_threshold. There is no need to subtract 10 points
> from down_threshold.
>
> Instead, we have to use the default down_threshold or user's selection
> unmodified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 8 ++------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> index 1e3be56..08be431 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> @@ -92,12 +92,8 @@ static void cs_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load)
>  		return;
>  	dbs_info->down_skip = 0;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * The optimal frequency is the frequency that is the lowest that can
> -	 * support the current CPU usage without triggering the up policy. To be
> -	 * safe, we focus 10 points under the threshold.
> -	 */
> -	if (load < (cs_tuners.down_threshold - 10)) {
> +	/* Check for frequency decrease */
> +	if (load < cs_tuners.down_threshold) {
>  		freq_target = (cs_tuners.freq_step * policy->max) / 100;
>  
>  		dbs_info->requested_freq -= freq_target;