Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 Mar 2013 22:15:03 +0200 | From | Stratos Karafotis <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH linux-next] cpufreq: conservative: Fix sampling_down_factor functionality |
| |
On 03/05/2013 09:34 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 5 March 2013 13:22, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr> 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
| |