Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [PATCH] cpufreq_(ondemand|conservative) (round three) | Date | Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:27:07 -0800 | From | "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <> |
| |
Thanks for the patches. Here are some comments about _ondemand patches.
(1) 00_consistency patch I think it is OK to do this for sampling_rate. But, we may have some nasty races / corner conditions if we do this for up_threashold and down_threshold. The race I am thinking about is: we check the new down_value with old up_value and we may end up finally with down_threshold greater than up_threshold.
(2) 01_ignore-nice The idea to have this is good. Somehow I am thinking of some corner cases here too. If the prev_cpu_idle_up and prev_cpu_idle_down have unconditionally include nice and total_ticks includes it conditionally, then we cannot do the proper subtract and compare of idle times. Am I missing anything here?
(3) 02_check-rate-and-break-out This looks good and ready to go.
(4) 03_sys_freq_step Looks good. One minor issue. Policy->max can change at run time (when a/c power and battery power). So behaviour might change if you initialize freq_step once instead of checking 5% of max during each switching. But, doing it this way should be OK too, as 5% is not a strict number.
Thanks, Venki - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |