On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:13:18PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
Hi Lukasz,
On 10.07.2020 10:34, 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@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
---
 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)
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ * Setup default thresholds for the devfreq governor.
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ * The values are chosen based on experiments.
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ */
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dmc->gov_data.upthreshold = 30;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dmc->gov_data.upthreshold = 10;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dmc->gov_data.downdifferential = 5;
 - exynos5_dmc_df_profile.polling_ms = 500;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ exynos5_dmc_df_profile.polling_ms = 100;
ÂÂÂÂÂ }
Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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.
Is there really a need to remove the interrupts property? imho they are
correct hw description, it just a matter of the driver to use or not to
use them.
That's actually very good point. I would also prefer to leave them.
However I understood that driver chooses mode depending on the property.
In such case, maybe as you said, let's switch to polling mode
unconditionally?
Best regards,
Krzysztof