[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53719C98.1010103@semaphore.gr>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 07:16:24 +0300
From: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>
To: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
CC: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@...el.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Change the calculation of
next pstate
On 12/05/2014 11:01 μμ, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:59:42AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/05/2014 10:34 μμ, Yuyang Du wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:30:03PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>>>> On 09/05/2014 05:56 μμ, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Next performance state = min_perf + (max_perf - min_perf) * load / 100
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This formula is fundamentally broken. You need to associate the load with its
>>> frequency.
>>
>> Could you please explain why is it broken? I think the load should be
>> independent from the current frequency.
>
> Why independent? The load not (somewhat) determined by that?
>
>
Maybe, in some cases yes. But not always.
For example, please consider a CPU running a tight "for" loop in 100MHz
for a couple of seconds. This produces a load of 100%.
It will produce the same load (100%) in any other frequency.
Stratos
--
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