On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:13:56 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 3 April 2013 12:01, stratosk <stratosk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm sorry, I don't understand. > > The goal of this patch is not energy saving. > > He probably misunderstood it... > > > The goal is to detect CPU load as soon as possible to increase frequency. > > > > Could you please clarify this? > > But he is looking for some numbers to prove your patch. Some numbers > that shows performance is better with your changes... Yes. If the goal of the patch is to improve performance, it would be good to know that it does meet the goal. IOW, *something* is supposed to be better with the patch and if so, numbers in support of this should be provided. 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
