Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1516769

Re: [Resend][PATCH] cpufreq: conservative: Decrease frequency faster when the timer deferred

Show all headers | View raw

On 07-11-16, 19:27, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> Yes, it could be done only when we decrease frequency. But I thought that maybe
> this is against conservative governor principle.
> 
> I initially observed this issue on a Snapdragon 808 using conservative on the
> big cluster (A57). The CPU seemed to remain in high frequencies for
> long time (even 10 seconds) before it returns to min.
> 
> So, most probably the load after the deferred period is completely unrelated to
> the previous one. If we apply this heuristic only when the frequency will be
> decreased (and having in mind that we copy the load value from the previous
> period), IMHO I'm afraid that the conservative will be still more aggressive even
> from ondemand governor.

The deferred period here is actually the time for which the CPU was idle and not
doing anything.

And I am not sure why we should be worrying about increasing the frequency steps
for the period for which the CPU was idle.

-- 
viresh

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[Resend][PATCH] cpufreq: conservative: Decrease frequency faster when  the timer deferred Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr> - 2016-11-06 10:20 +0100
  Re: [Resend][PATCH] cpufreq: conservative: Decrease frequency faster  when the timer deferred Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-07 07:20 +0100
    Re: [Resend][PATCH] cpufreq: conservative: Decrease frequency faster  when the timer deferred Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr> - 2016-11-07 18:30 +0100
      Re: [Resend][PATCH] cpufreq: conservative: Decrease frequency faster  when the timer deferred Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-08 05:10 +0100

csiph-web