On 10 April 2013 11:38, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
>> On 10 April 2013 10:44, Lukasz Majewski
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Vincent,
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Viresh and Vincent,
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewsk
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:44:52AM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
[...]
> > Have you also looked at the power clamp driver that have similar
> > target ?
>
> I might be wrong here, but in my opinion the power clamp driver is a bit
> different:
>
> 1. It is dedicated to Intel SoCs, which provide
Hi Vincent,
> On 10 April 2013 10:44, Lukasz Majewski
> wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Viresh and Vincent,
> >> >
> >> >> On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, J
On 10 April 2013 10:44, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Viresh and Vincent,
>> >
>> >> On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee
>> >> > Our approach is a bi
Hi Vincent,
>
>
> On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski
> wrote:
> > Hi Viresh and Vincent,
> >
> >> On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski
> >> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee
> >> > Our approach is a bit different than cpufreq_ondemand one.
> >> > Ondemand take
On 9 April 2013 20:52, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> Hi Viresh and Vincent,
>>
>>> On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee
>>> > Our approach is a bit different than cpufreq_ondemand one.
Hi Viresh and Vincent,
> On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee
> > Our approach is a bit different than cpufreq_ondemand one. Ondemand
> > takes the per CPU idle time, then on that basis calculates per cpu
> > load. The next step is to choo
Hi, sorry for my late reply.
I just want to add comment to assist Lukasz's.
I put my comments below of Lukasz's.
On 2013년 04월 09일 19:37, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
>
> First of all I'd like to apologize for a late response.
> Please find my comments below.
>
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at
On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee
> Our approach is a bit different than cpufreq_ondemand one. Ondemand
> takes the per CPU idle time, then on that basis calculates per cpu load.
> The next step is to choose the highest load and then use t
Hi Viresh,
First of all I'd like to apologize for a late response.
Please find my comments below.
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee
> wrote:
> > <>
> > One of the problem of ondemand is that it considers the most busy
> > cpu only while doesn't care how many cpu is in busy state at
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee wrote:
> <>
> One of the problem of ondemand is that it considers the most busy
> cpu only while doesn't care how many cpu is in busy state at the
> moment. This may results in unnecessary power consumption, and it'll
> be critical for the system having
This patchset adds new cpufreq governor named LAB(Legacy Application
Boost). Basically, this governor is based on ondemand governor.
** Introduce LAB (Legacy Application Boost) governor
<>
One of the problem of ondemand is that it considers the most busy
cpu only while doesn't care how many cpu
12 matches
Mail list logo
