[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:38:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler
utilization data
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:01:15PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > In case a more formal derivation of this formula is needed, it is
> > based on the following 3 assumptions:
> >
> > (1) Performance is a linear function of frequency.
> > (2) Required performance is a linear function of the utilization ratio
> > x = util/max as provided by the scheduler (0 <= x <= 1).
>
> Just to mention that the utilization that you are using, varies with
> the frequency which add another variable in your equation
Right, x86 hasn't implemented arch_scale_freq_capacity(), so the
utilization values we use are all over the map. If we lower freq, the
util will go up, which would result in us bumping the freq again, etc..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists