* [PATCH -next 1/3] cpufreq: Fix a typo in comment
@ 2013-02-28 5:38 Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 5:38 ` [PATCH -next 2/3] cpufreq: conservative: Break out earlier on the lowest frequency Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 5:38 ` [PATCH -next 3/3] cpufreq: conservative: Fix relation when decreasing frequency Namhyung Kim
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2013-02-28 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki; +Cc: LKML, cpufreq, linux-pm, Namhyung Kim, Viresh Kumar
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
index d2ac91150600..46bde01eee62 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static void *get_cpu_dbs_info_s(int cpu) \
* dbs: used as a shortform for demand based switching It helps to keep variable
* names smaller, simpler
* cdbs: common dbs
- * on_*: On-demand governor
+ * od_*: On-demand governor
* cs_*: Conservative governor
*/
--
1.7.11.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH -next 2/3] cpufreq: conservative: Break out earlier on the lowest frequency
2013-02-28 5:38 [PATCH -next 1/3] cpufreq: Fix a typo in comment Namhyung Kim
@ 2013-02-28 5:38 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 5:38 ` [PATCH -next 3/3] cpufreq: conservative: Fix relation when decreasing frequency Namhyung Kim
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2013-02-28 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki; +Cc: LKML, cpufreq, linux-pm, Namhyung Kim, Viresh Kumar
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>
If we're on the lowest frequency, no need to calculate new freq.
Break out even earlier in this case.
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
index 4fd0006b1291..dd2fd9094819 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
@@ -93,18 +93,18 @@ static void cs_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load)
* safe, we focus 10 points under the threshold.
*/
if (load < (cs_tuners.down_threshold - 10)) {
- freq_target = (cs_tuners.freq_step * policy->max) / 100;
-
- dbs_info->requested_freq -= freq_target;
- if (dbs_info->requested_freq < policy->min)
- dbs_info->requested_freq = policy->min;
-
/*
* if we cannot reduce the frequency anymore, break out early
*/
if (policy->cur == policy->min)
return;
+ freq_target = (cs_tuners.freq_step * policy->max) / 100;
+
+ dbs_info->requested_freq -= freq_target;
+ if (dbs_info->requested_freq < policy->min)
+ dbs_info->requested_freq = policy->min;
+
__cpufreq_driver_target(policy, dbs_info->requested_freq,
CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
return;
--
1.7.11.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [PATCH -next 3/3] cpufreq: conservative: Fix relation when decreasing frequency
2013-02-28 5:38 [PATCH -next 1/3] cpufreq: Fix a typo in comment Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 5:38 ` [PATCH -next 2/3] cpufreq: conservative: Break out earlier on the lowest frequency Namhyung Kim
@ 2013-02-28 5:38 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 5:47 ` Viresh Kumar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2013-02-28 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki; +Cc: LKML, cpufreq, linux-pm, Namhyung Kim, Viresh Kumar
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);
return;
}
}
--
1.7.11.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next 3/3] cpufreq: conservative: Fix relation when decreasing frequency
2013-02-28 5:38 ` [PATCH -next 3/3] cpufreq: conservative: Fix relation when decreasing frequency Namhyung Kim
@ 2013-02-28 5:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-28 5:59 ` Namhyung Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-02-28 5:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Namhyung Kim; +Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, LKML, cpufreq, linux-pm, Namhyung Kim
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next 3/3] cpufreq: conservative: Fix relation when decreasing frequency
2013-02-28 5:47 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2013-02-28 5:59 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 6:05 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2013-02-28 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar; +Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, LKML, cpufreq, linux-pm, Namhyung Kim
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next 3/3] cpufreq: conservative: Fix relation when decreasing frequency
2013-02-28 5:59 ` Namhyung Kim
@ 2013-02-28 6:05 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-02-28 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Namhyung Kim; +Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, LKML, cpufreq, linux-pm, Namhyung Kim
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-28 6:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-02-28 5:38 [PATCH -next 1/3] cpufreq: Fix a typo in comment Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 5:38 ` [PATCH -next 2/3] cpufreq: conservative: Break out earlier on the lowest frequency Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 5:38 ` [PATCH -next 3/3] cpufreq: conservative: Fix relation when decreasing frequency Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 5:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-28 5:59 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-02-28 6:05 ` Viresh Kumar
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.