[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100427130139.GC3681@ucw.cz>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:01:39 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Mike Chan <mike@...roid.com>
Cc: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
?ric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
davej@...hat.com, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] ondemand: Solve the big performance issue with
ondemand during disk IO
Hi!
> > But I follow Eric and agree that if it costs that much, changing
> > above sounds sane.
> > Still, I could imagine some people might want to not raise freq on IO bound
> > process activity, therefore this should get another ondemand param, similar
> > to ignore_nice_load.
> >
>
> I agree with Thomas here. Some of these assumptions on IO / FSB
> performance with cpu speed do not hold true on various ARM platforms.
>
> Perhaps we could have a min_io_freq value? Which is the min speed for
> the cpu to run at for IO bound activity. In the original patch,
> min_io_freq = scaling_max_freq. For various arm devices I can happily
> set min_io_freq to the lowest cpu speed that satisfies bus speeds.
'satisfies bus speeds' == minimum cpu frequency where i/o works at all
or
== minimum cpu frequency where i/o works at full speed
?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists