> -----Original Message----- > From: linaro-dev-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-dev- > boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Vincent Guittot > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 5:34 PM > To: Vishwanath Sripathy > Cc: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > Subject: Re: [PM] cpufreq test > > On 7 February 2011 12:55, Vishwanath Sripathy > <vishwanath.sripa...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Vincent, > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Vincent Guittot > > <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> Hi vishwa, > >> > >> I have passed cpufreq-bench on my platform. The results below > have > >> been reached with a sampling rate of 20ms and a sampling_down > factor > >> set to 10. > >> > >> I have a question about the sampling_down feature : The ondemand > delay > >> value is calculated before calling dbs_check_cpu, but > dbs_check_cpu > >> can modify rate_mult. This implies that if the rate_mult is set > to 1 > >> in dbs_check_cpu because we set something else than the max > frequency, > >> the next sampling period will be > sampling_rate*sampling_down_factor > >> (the one used for max freq) but the frequency can be the lowest > one. > >> We should rather calculate the delay after dbs_check_cpu or i > miss > >> something ? > > Good point. Yes, with current implementation, change in rate_mult > will > > have effect only after next do_dbs_timer is called and the point > > raised by you is perfectly valid. Why don't you post this query to > > cpu_freq mailing list? > > > > ok, i'm going to send it > May be just send the patch to fix it.
Regards, Santosh _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
