On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 06:49:14 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote: > On 04/02/2013 04:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Do you have any numbers indicating that this actually makes things better? > > > > Rafael > > No, I don't. > The expected behaviour after this patch is to "force" max frequency few sampling periods earlier. > The idea was to increase system responsiveness especially on 'small' embedded systems (phones for example). > > Actually, I thought to provide some numbers but I had no idea how to measure this. > > Would it be enough to provide the number of times that the CPU increases frequency > because of early_demand versus the total number of increments? I think it would be better to check if your approach leads to a better behavior as far as energy savings are concerned. If it actually is worse, then I don't see a reason to apply it. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
