[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200512173722.GM2978@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 19:37:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Pratik Rajesh Sampat <psampat@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, dsmythies@...us.net,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
svaidy@...ux.ibm.com, pratik.sampat@...ibm.com,
pratik.r.sampat@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] Weighted approach to gather and use history in TEO
governor
Just a quick note..
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:40:55PM +0530, Pratik Rajesh Sampat wrote:
> + /*
> + * Rearrange the weight distribution of the state, increase the weight
> + * by the LEARNING RATE % for the idle state that was supposed to be
> + * chosen and reduce by the same amount for rest of the states
> + *
> + * If the weights are greater than (100 - LEARNING_RATE) % or lesser
> + * than LEARNING_RATE %, do not increase or decrease the confidence
> + * respectively
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < drv->state_count; i++) {
> + unsigned int delta;
> +
> + if (idx == -1)
> + break;
> + if (i == idx) {
> + delta = (LEARNING_RATE * cpu_data->state_mat[last_idx][i]) / 100;
100 is a crap number to divide by as a computer. We bio-puddings happend
to have 10 digits, so 100 makes sense to us, but it does not to our
binary friends.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists