| Message ID | 1362029882-28993-3-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 28 February 2013 11:08, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com> > > The relation should be CPUFREQ_RELATION_L to find optimal frequency > when decreasing. > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > index dd2fd9094819..0d582811d66c 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void cs_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load) > dbs_info->requested_freq = policy->min; > > __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, dbs_info->requested_freq, > - CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); Other two patches are fine but really not sure about this one. When decreasing freq, what do we want: - lowest frequency at or above target, i.e. >= requested_freq - highest frequency below or at target, i.e. <= requested_freq I thought second option was better and so CPUFREQ_RELATION_H suits more. What made you do this change? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Viresh, On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:17:03 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28 February 2013 11:08, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: >> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com> >> >> The relation should be CPUFREQ_RELATION_L to find optimal frequency >> when decreasing. >> >> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c >> index dd2fd9094819..0d582811d66c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c >> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void cs_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load) >> dbs_info->requested_freq = policy->min; >> >> __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, dbs_info->requested_freq, >> - CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); >> + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); > > Other two patches are fine but really not sure about this one. > When decreasing freq, what do we want: > - lowest frequency at or above target, i.e. >= requested_freq > - highest frequency below or at target, i.e. <= requested_freq > > I thought second option was better and so CPUFREQ_RELATION_H > suits more. What made you do this change? When decreasing, we were on a higher frequency than target so selecting above or equal to the target frequency seems to be "conservative". And AFAICS the ondemance governor also uses RELATION_L for decreasing. Thanks, Namhyung -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 28 February 2013 11:29, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > When decreasing, we were on a higher frequency than target so selecting > above or equal to the target frequency seems to be "conservative". I will buy that. For all three patches: Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c index dd2fd9094819..0d582811d66c 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void cs_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load) dbs_info->requested_freq = policy->min; __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, dbs_info->requested_freq, - CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); return; } }