On 5 March 2013 22:21, David C Niemi wrote:
> I'd like to ask -- what is the intended use of the conservative governor
> these days as differentiated from the ondemand governor? At one time it
> seemed more oriented towards power savings, but the ondemand governor had
> picked up most or all o
Hi David,
On 03/05/2013 04:21 PM, David C Niemi wrote:
I should clarify -- I wrote the sampling_down_factor in the *ondemand*
governor. I chose the name of the parameter based on the vaguely similar
parameter in the conservative governor, but the documentation that was
referenced (about it o
On 03/05/2013 09:34 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 5 March 2013 13:22, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
I misread it here when i looked at this mail for the first time. :)
I strongly believe that we need a full stop (.) before "Every sampling_rate",
otherwise it looks like we check for down_factor while inc
I am the author of sampling_down_factor. I only intended it to have an effect
if you are already attempting to achieve maximum performance (e.g. at the top
available clock speed for the current infrastructure). This is special because
there is no possibility of going any faster so the only sp
I should clarify -- I wrote the sampling_down_factor in the *ondemand*
governor. I chose the name of the parameter based on the vaguely similar
parameter in the conservative governor, but the documentation that was
referenced (about it only applying at top speed and the comment about skipping
On 5 March 2013 13:22, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> I had the same thoughts, but I saw the comments in the code:
>
> /*
> * Every sampling_rate, we check, if current idle time is less than 20%
> * (default), then we try to increase frequency Every sampling_rate *
> * sampling_down_factor, we chec
Hi Viresh,
On 03/05/2013 02:23 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:> Interesting. Because it was
removed earlier and no body complained :)
>
> I got following from Documentation:
>
> sampling_down_factor: this parameter controls the rate at which the
> kernel makes a decision on when to decrease the frequen
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> sampling_down_factor tunable is unused since commit
> 8e677ce83bf41ba9c74e5b6d9ee60b07d4e5ed93 (4 years ago).
>
> This patch restores the original functionality.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conser
sampling_down_factor tunable is unused since commit
8e677ce83bf41ba9c74e5b6d9ee60b07d4e5ed93 (4 years ago).
This patch restores the original functionality.
Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drive
9 matches
Mail list logo
