Thanks for taking this on. I wrote this when talking about the patch as a proposed change, now that it is the status quo, I think the second sentence needs to be adjusted a bit as follows: "Set it to 1 it makes no changes from existing behavior," -> "When set to 1 (the default) decisions to reevaluate load are made at the same interval regardless of current clock speed;" DCN Vishwanath BS wrote: > Update cpufreq governor documentation for sampling_down_factor tunable > parameter. > > Signed-off-by: Vishwanath BS <vishwanath.bs@xxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/cpu-freq/governors.txt | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/cpu-freq/governors.txt b/Documentation/cpu-freq/governors.txt > index 737988f..ef570ff > --- a/Documentation/cpu-freq/governors.txt > +++ b/Documentation/cpu-freq/governors.txt > @@ -158,6 +158,16 @@ intensive calculation on your laptop that you do not care how long it > takes to complete as you can 'nice' it and prevent it from taking part > in the deciding process of whether to increase your CPU frequency. > > +sampling_down_factor: this parameter controls the rate at which the > +kernel makes a decision on when to decrease the frequency while running > +at top speed. Set to 1 it makes no changes from existing behavior, > +but set to greater than 1 (e.g. 100) it acts as a multiplier for the > +scheduling interval for reevaluating load when the CPU is at its top > +speed due to high load. This improves performance by reducing the overhead > +of load evaluation and helping the CPU stay at its top speed when truly > +busy, rather than shifting back and forth in speed. This tunable has no > +effect on behavior at lower speeds/lower CPU loads. > + > > 2.5 Conservative > ---------------- > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
