On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:44 PM Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 11:58:37AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > So after the Peter's patch "sched/cpufreq: Fix 32bit math overflow" > > I will need to recompute sg_cpu->min in sugov_limits(). > > So there's still an open question; do we want that ->min thing to depend > on available frequencies _at_all_ ? > > I'm thinking it might be a good thing to have the iowait boost curve be > independent of all that. > > Like said; if we set it at 128 (static), it takes 9 consequtive wake-ups > for it to reach 1024 (max). While now the curve depends on how wide the > gap is between min_freq and max_freq. And it seems weird to have this > behaviour depend on that. To me at least. > > Now, I don't know if 128/9 is the right curve, it is just a random > number I pulled out of a hat. But it seems to make more sense than > depending on frequencies.
I agree.
