RE: [PATCH] cpufreq_(ondemand|conservative) (round three)
From: Pallipadi, Venkatesh
Date: Wed Nov 10 2004 - 20:28:29 EST
Thanks for the patches. Here are some comments about _ondemand patches.
(1) 00_consistency patch
I think it is OK to do this for sampling_rate. But, we may have some
nasty races / corner conditions if we do this for up_threashold and
down_threshold. The race I am thinking about is: we check the new
down_value with old up_value and we may end up finally with
down_threshold greater than up_threshold.
The idea to have this is good. Somehow I am thinking of some corner
cases here too.
If the prev_cpu_idle_up and prev_cpu_idle_down have unconditionally
include nice and total_ticks includes it conditionally, then we cannot
do the proper subtract and compare of idle times. Am I missing anything
This looks good and ready to go.
Looks good. One minor issue. Policy->max can change at run time (when
a/c power and battery power). So behaviour might change if you
initialize freq_step once instead of checking 5% of max during each
switching. But, doing it this way should be OK too, as 5% is not a
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/