lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH linux-next] cpufreq: conservative: Fix sampling_down_factor functionality
Hi David,
On 03/05/2013 04:21 PM, David C Niemi wrote:
>
> I should clarify -- I wrote the sampling_down_factor in the *ondemand* governor. I chose the name of the parameter based on the vaguely similar parameter in the conservative governor, but the documentation that was referenced (about it only applying at top speed and the comment about skipping evaluation opportunities when it is active) was written by me in reference to the ondemand governor. It could be that someone backported some of the ondemand sampling_down_factor's behavior to the conservative governor.
>
> I'd like to ask -- what is the intended use of the conservative governor these days as differentiated from the ondemand governor? At one time it seemed more oriented towards power savings, but the ondemand governor had picked up most or all of its power-saving features.

Thanks for the information.
I would agree about the use of conservative, but I think that I'm not
the right person to answer this question. :)

Regards,
Stratos


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-05 22:21    [W:0.127 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site