[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpomt+7YtD5s+XJ5-boCu_atCB0kHhuifWOGVwy7DqnBLPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:20:07 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Cc: rjw@...k.pl, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
robin.randhawa@....com, Steve.Bannister@....com,
Liviu.Dudau@....com, charles.garcia-tobin@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpufreq: governor: Set MIN_LATENCY_MULTIPLIER to 20
On 26 February 2013 16:14, Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de> wrote:
> Redefining MIN_LATENCY_MULTIPLIER shouldn't hurt that much, but this looks
> like a workaround.
> It only modifies the minimal sampling rate that userspace can set.
Yes.
> You would still need to set something from userspace to get the perfect
> sampling rate for this platform.
Yes. We still need to fix sampling rate from userspace.
> I wonder where the cpufreq driver does get the 1ms latency from?
> Is this value valid?
> The driver should return the correct latency, then there is no need for
> workarounds like this.
I am talking about ARM Vexpress TC2 (Test Chip) big LITTLE SoC here. Its
not a production type SoC and freq change is a bit slow here. Its really around
1 ms :)
But the real systems may not have this big of latency.
Anyway, how do you come to 100 value in your initial patch. What motivated you
to fix it there?
--
viresh
--
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