[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170712093630.lppm7yaqeiro2276@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:36:30 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Andres Oportus <andresoportus@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy
efficient
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:30:35AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11-07-17, 07:14, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Another approach than setting min in sugov_set_iowait_boost, is, since
> > we have already retrieved the current util, we can check if flags ==
> > SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT, then set initial the iowait_boost such that
> > (iowait_boost / iowait_boost_max) is aleast equal to (util / max) or
> > iowait_boost_min, which ever is lower.
>
> So my concerns weren't only about the initial min value, but also that you
> reduce the freq from sugov_set_iowait_boost(). We can discuss what the ideal
> value to start with can be.
I'm not sure I see that. He only mucks with iowait_boost, not the actual
frequency afaict.
And sugov_iowait_boost() picks the highest of util vs iowait_boost,
which wasn't changed.
Or am I completely missing something? (that code is a bit hard to
follow)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists