From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932763Ab3DBPtU (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:49:20 -0400 Received: from sema.semaphore.gr ([78.46.194.137]:56108 "EHLO sema.semaphore.gr" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760123Ab3DBPtT (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:49:19 -0400 Message-ID: <515AFDFA.8090108@semaphore.gr> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:49:14 +0300 From: Stratos Karafotis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Viresh Kumar , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 linux-next] cpufreq: ondemand: Calculate gradient of CPU load to early increase frequency References: <51253715.7080600@semaphore.gr> <51561556.7020904@semaphore.gr> <1544183.cq3KaqH8x3@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <1544183.cq3KaqH8x3@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/02/2013 04:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Do you have any numbers indicating that this actually makes things better? > > Rafael No, I don't. The expected behaviour after this patch is to "force" max frequency few sampling periods earlier. The idea was to increase system responsiveness especially on 'small' embedded systems (phones for example). Actually, I thought to provide some numbers but I had no idea how to measure this. Would it be enough to provide the number of times that the CPU increases frequency because of early_demand versus the total number of increments? Thanks, Stratos