lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Change the calculation of next pstate
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:16:24AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 12/05/2014 11:01 μμ, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:59:42AM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 12/05/2014 10:34 μμ, Yuyang Du wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:30:03PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >>>> On 09/05/2014 05:56 μμ, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Next performance state = min_perf + (max_perf - min_perf) * load / 100
> >>>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> This formula is fundamentally broken. You need to associate the load with its
> >>> frequency.
> >>
> >> Could you please explain why is it broken? I think the load should be
> >> independent from the current frequency.
> >
> > Why independent? The load not (somewhat) determined by that?
> >
> >
>
> Maybe, in some cases yes. But not always.
> For example, please consider a CPU running a tight "for" loop in 100MHz
> for a couple of seconds. This produces a load of 100%.
> It will produce the same load (100%) in any other frequency.

Still fundamentally wrong, because you are not making a fair
comparison ("load" in 100MHz vs. any other freq).

Yuyang
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-13 07:21    [W:0.050 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site