On Saturday, June 01, 2013 08:26:47 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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. Why would you want to revert it separately? > >> "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. Which doesn't matter. The formula should provide the same results regardless of the user settings except that the selected frequency should be capped by policy->max (instead of being proportional to it). I think using cpuinfo.max_freq here is correct. > 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. Yes, in the majority of cases. 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
