[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140528165337.GB2296@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 00:53:38 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Cc: 'Johan Hovold' <jhovold@...il.com>,
'Dirk Brandewie' <dirk.brandewie@...il.com>,
'Viresh Kumar' <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
dirk.j.brandewie@...el.com,
"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
'Linux Kernel Mailing List' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
'Greg Kroah-Hartman' <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
'Stratos Karafotis' <stratosk@...aphore.gr>
Subject: Re: Performance regression in v3.14
> That is not true. Yes, and due to the setpoint being less than
> 100, which is needed or the driver won't work at all, there is
> a tendency to drive the target pstate upwards.
> However that is tempered by both the PID proportional gain,
> and ultimately integer math. More importantly, the CPU
> itself tells the driver when it is operating below the target
> pstate and driver responds.
>
> Additionally, the tendency to drive up the target pstate
> too much is exasperated by some extra rounding up at a
> couple of spots. Dirk has a pending fix.
>
> > And a few iterations
> > later, we will reach max (possible) frequency,
> > then we are effectively performance governor
> > (highest frequency all the time).
>
> Please do not confuse highest target pstate with
> highest frequency. They are not the same. The processor
> itself can back off.
>
Hi Doug,
All you said is about the hardware will not give whatever software wants
(e.g., requested freq too high). Agreed.
But does it matter to this discussion?
Yuyang
--
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