On 03/05/2013 09:34 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 5 March 2013 13:22, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I misread it here when i looked at this mail for the first time. :)
I strongly believe that we need a full stop (.) before "Every sampling_rate",
otherwise it looks like we check for down_factor while increasing freq :)
I agree. I will do that.
Even now we aren't checking this 80% thing, right? And so in your patch we can
actually fix the patch too with the right logic of code.. And
documentation too :)
In my opinion the logic was initially correct. It was broken in the same
commit that broke also sampling_down_factor.
Now we check if load < (cs_tuners.down_threshold - 10) to decrease freq.
Down threshold is 20, so we actually check the 80% idle.
I think the subtraction of 10 from down_threshold is wrong. It seems
similar with ondemand but there is no logic for this in conservative.
User can simply select the down_threshold and the load will be compared
with user's value. No need to alter user's selection.
I will prepare a patchset for these changes.
Regards,
Stratos
--
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
