Hi Viresh, On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:17:03 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28 February 2013 11:08, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@xxxxxxx> >> >> The relation should be CPUFREQ_RELATION_L to find optimal frequency >> when decreasing. >> >> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> 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 -- 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
