>>-----Original Message----- >>From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- >>ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Turquette, Mike >>Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 1:20 AM >>To: Sripathy, Vishwanath >>Cc: linux-o...@vger.kernel.org; linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org >>Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP PM: Optimize cpufreq transition latency >> >>On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Vishwanath BS <vishwanath...@ti.com> wrote: >>> Currently cpufreq transition latency value does not really reflect the >>actual >>> OMAP OPP transition delay. This patch has the actual latency value. >>> I did profile the DVFS latency on OMAP3430, OMAP3630 and OMAP4 for >>worstcase(MPU and Core together) and found that in none of these platforms, >>transiton value >>> goes beyong 10ms. Added a buffer of 20ms to avoid too frequent ondemand >>timer >>> expiry. >>> With this change, performance of ondemand governor is improved when tested >>> using cpufreqbench tool. Without this patch, cpufreq-bench reported >>ondemand >>> performance as 40% of performance governor, and with this patch it's around >>70% >>> (using below procedure). >>> >>> cpufreq-bench: >>> http://lwn.net/Articles/339862/ >>> http://ftp.riken.go.jp/archives/Linux/suse/people/ckornacker/cpufreq-bench/ >>> >>> Command used for performance testing: >>> cpufreq-bench -l 50000 -s 100000 -x 50000 -y 100000 -g ondemand -r 5 -n 5 - >>v >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vishwanath BS <vishwanath...@ti.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/plat-omap/cpu-omap.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> mode change 100644 => 100755 arch/arm/plat-omap/cpu-omap.c >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/cpu-omap.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/cpu-omap.c >>> old mode 100644 >>> new mode 100755 >>> index c47faf8..d3fc423 >>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/cpu-omap.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/cpu-omap.c >>> @@ -158,8 +158,8 @@ static int __init omap_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy >>*policy) >>> policy->max = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq; >>> policy->cur = omap_getspeed(0); >>> >>> - /* FIXME: what's the actual transition time? */ >>> - policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 300 * 1000; >>> + /* Program the actual transition time for worstcase */ >>> + policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 30 * 1000; >> >>Vishwa, >> >>This is a frequent periodic timer. Does a smaller value have any >>affect on CPUidle wakeups?
I thought this is a deferred timer and so should not affect the cpuidle thread at all. Regards Thara _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
