29/10/2019 15:05, Hunt, David: > On 27/10/2019 18:35, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 06/08/2019 13:18, Thomas Monjalon: > >> 26/07/2019 12:15, Burakov, Anatoly: > >>> So it's biased towards scaling up quickly, but it's doing that over a > >>> period. Please correct me if i'm wrong as i'm not really familiar with > >>> this codebase, but, assuming the window size is long enough, you could > >>> be missing opportunities to scale down? For example, if you get a short > >>> burst of 1's followed by a long burst of zeroes, you're not scaling down > >>> until you go through the entire buffer and overwrite all of the values. > >>> I guess that's the point of oscillation prevention, but maybe you could > >>> improve the "scale-up" part by only checking a few recent values, rather > >>> than the entire buffer? > >> This patch is deferred to 19.11. > > Any news for this patch? > > > The algorithm was intended to be biased (strongly) towards the scale-up, > for performance reasons. If there is a single "scale-up" in the entire > array, then we stay up until the entire array agrees that we can scale > down. If the user wants to relax this, then simply reduce the size of > the array, which will have the same affect. But I had tested it with an > array size of 32, and that gave the best results for my use cases.
I'm not sure to understand. The patch is rejected?
