Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] memory: samsung: exynos5422-dmc: Adjust polling interval and uptreshold | From | Lukasz Luba <> | Date | Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:00:37 +0100 |
| |
On 7/10/20 2:49 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On 7/10/20 2:56 PM, Lukasz Luba wrote: >> >> >> On 7/10/20 1:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:34:45AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote: >>>> Hi Chanwoo, >>>> >>>> On 7/9/20 5:08 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>>>> Hi Lukasz, >>>>> >>>>> On 7/9/20 12:34 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote: >>>>>> In order to react faster and make better decisions under some workloads, >>>>>> benchmarking the memory subsystem behavior, adjust the polling interval >>>>>> and upthreshold value used by the simple_ondemand governor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reported-by: Willy Wolff <willy.mh.wolff.ml@gmail.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 4 ++-- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c >>>>>> index 93e9c2429c0d..e03ee35f0ab5 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c >>>>>> @@ -1466,10 +1466,10 @@ static int exynos5_dmc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>>> * Setup default thresholds for the devfreq governor. >>>>>> * The values are chosen based on experiments. >>>>>> */ >>>>>> - dmc->gov_data.upthreshold = 30; >>>>>> + dmc->gov_data.upthreshold = 10; >>>>>> dmc->gov_data.downdifferential = 5; >>>>>> - exynos5_dmc_df_profile.polling_ms = 500; >>>>>> + exynos5_dmc_df_profile.polling_ms = 100; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for the review. Do you think this patch could go through >>>> your tree together with your patches? >>>> >>>> I don't know Krzysztof's opinion about the patch 2/2, but >>>> I would expect, assuming the patch itself is correct, he would >>>> like to take it into his next/dt branch. >>> >>> In the cover letter you mentioned that this is a follow up for the >>> Chanwoo's patchset. But are these patches really depending on it? Can >>> they be picked up independently? >> >> >> They are not heavily dependent on Chanwoo's patches. >> Yes, they can be picked up independently. > > Hmmm, are you sure?
In a sense: in two phases (first the Chanwoo's changes land into devfreq, then when Krzysztof prepares his topic branches for arm soc, I assumed Chanwoo's patches are mainline and will be there already).
> > Sure, they will apply fine but without Chanwoo's patches won't they > cause the dmc driver to use using polling mode with deferred timer > (unintended/bad behavior) instead of IRQs (current behavior) or > polling mode with delayed timer (future behavior)?
I was assuming that it will take longer, when Krzysztof is going to pick patch 2/2, definitely after a while (and it could be also the case for patch 1/1 if Krzysztof was going to take it).
I think there is no rush and it can go in two phases.
Good point Bartek for clarifying this. I wasn't clear in the messages. Thank you for keeping eye on this.
Regards, Lukasz
> > Best regards, > -- > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > Samsung R&D Institute Poland > Samsung Electronics > >> I just wanted to mention that the patch 1/2 was produced on the >> code base which had already applied Chanwoo's patch for DMC. >> If you like to take both 1/2 and 2/2 into your tree, it's good. >> >> Thank you for having a look on this. >> >> Regards, >> Lukasz >> >> >>> >>> The DTS patch must go through arm soc, so I will take it. If it really >>> depends on driver changes, then it has to wait for next release. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >>> >
| |