Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Mon Jun 03 2013 - 07:24:17 EST
On 3 June 2013 16:27, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The question is if we want policy->max to re-scale them effectively (i.e. to
> change weights so that the maximum load maps to the highest frequency available
> at the moment) or if we want policy->max to work as a cap (i.e. to map all
> loads above certain value to the maximum frequency available at the moment, so
> that the criteria for selecting the lower frequencies don't change). In my
> opinion the second option is better, because it means "OK, we can't use some
> high frequencies, but let's not hurt performance for the loads that wouldn't
> require them anyway". Otherwise, we'll effectively throttle all loads and
> that not only causes performance to drop, but also causes more energy to be
> used overall.
I wouldn't say that I don't agree with you as I do to some extent.
But the question that comes to my mind now is: Why is policy->max reduced
in the first place? User doesn't have control over which freqs to expose, so
available_frequencies will stay the same. The only thing he is capable
of doing is: reduce policy->max.. Which in a way means that.. "I don't want to
use higher frequencies (power, thermal reasons) and I know performance will
go down with it and I don't care for it now."
And this way I feel policy->max isn't a bad choice either.
BUT as you said: policy->max isn't there to say don't be so aggressive now in
increasing frequencies but just only to say, don't go over this frequency..
So, probably we can use cpuinfo.max_freq :)
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/