[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161121144343.GH3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:43:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>, tkjos@...gle.com,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition
rate limits
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:37:27PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 21/11/16 15:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Not sure I follow. So by limiting decay to the task value, the moment we
> > add it back to the accumulated signal (wakeup), the accumulated signal
> > jumps up quickly and ramp-up is achieved.
> >
>
> This is true, but it seems that this potentially spiky behaviour
> (which in general depends on tasks composition and periodicity) might
> affect power savings (as in you don't generally want to switch between
> high and low freqs too often). So that's why I was just thinking that
> some sort of smoothing applied to the signal schedutil uses might help.
Hurm.. so during LPC it was said that fast ramp-up was desired. Note
that we'll not ramp down this fast, the accumulated signal will decay
slowly as per blocked-load PELT rules. So only ramp-up is spiky, but
that is what was desired AFAIU.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists