On 31 May 2013 22:03, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/31/2013 11:51 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> I believe you should have removed other users of getavg() in a separate
>> patch and also cc'd relevant people so that you can some review comments
>> from them.
>
> I will split the patch in two. If it's OK, I will keep the removal of
> __cpufreq_driver_getavg in the original patch and move the clean up of
> APERF/MPERF support in a second patch. I will also cc relevant people.
Even removal of __cpufreq_driver_getavg() should be done in a separate
patch, so that it can be reverted easily if required later.
>> "Proportional to load" means C * load, so why is "policy->max / 100" *the* right C?
>
> I think, finally(?) I see your point. The right C should be "policy->cpuinfo.max_freq / 100".
Why are you changing it to cpuinfo.max_freq?? This is fixed once a driver is
initialized.. but user may request a lower max freq for a governor or policy.
Which is actually reflected in policy->max I believe.
Over that why keeping following check is useful anymore?
if (load_freq > od_tuners->up_threshold)
goto max.
As, if load is over 95, then even policy->max * 95 / 100 will even give almost
the same freq.
--
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
