On 04/09/2013 07:56 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 04/05/2013 10:50 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Viresh,
On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Stratos,
Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the
only thing
we were looking for, then we will never use
On 04/09/2013 07:56 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 04/05/2013 10:50 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Viresh,
On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Stratos,
Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the
only thing
we were looking for, then we will never use
On 04/10/2013 06:22 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 9 April 2013 22:26, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 04/05/2013 10:50 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Viresh,
On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Stratos,
Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the only
thing
On 04/10/2013 06:22 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 9 April 2013 22:26, Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
On 04/05/2013 10:50 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Viresh,
On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Stratos,
Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if
On 9 April 2013 22:26, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 04/05/2013 10:50 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>>
>> Hi Viresh,
>>
>> On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stratos,
>>>
>>> Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the only
>>> thing
>>> we were looking
On 04/05/2013 10:50 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Viresh,
On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Stratos,
Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the only thing
we were looking for, then we will never use ondemand governor but performance
governor.
I suspect
On 04/05/2013 10:50 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Viresh,
On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Stratos,
Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the only thing
we were looking for, then we will never use ondemand governor but performance
governor.
I suspect
On 9 April 2013 22:26, Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
On 04/05/2013 10:50 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
Hi Viresh,
On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Stratos,
Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the only
thing
we were looking for,
Hi Viresh,
On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Stratos,
>
> Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the only thing
> we were looking for, then we will never use ondemand governor but performance
> governor.
>
> I suspect this little increase in performance
Hi Viresh,
On 04/04/2013 07:54 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Stratos,
Yes, your results show some improvements. BUT if performance is the only thing
we were looking for, then we will never use ondemand governor but performance
governor.
I suspect this little increase in performance must
I agree that we will have false alarms but this will not be a total waste of
power since the load will be more than 50 (the default grad_up_threshold value).
So, I don't think there will be *significant* increase in power. Though, I
don't know a way to prove this with numbers.
Thanks,
Stratos
On 4 April 2013 12:17, stratosk wrote:
> Why do you suspect significant increased power? With ondemand the CPU will
> go down to lowest freq as soon as the load will decreased. And the
> measurement shows that the CPU load will decrease faster (because of faster
> calculation).
I suspect it
Hi Viresh,
I never use performance governor, but I want improved performance with ondemand.
Why do you suspect significant increased power? With ondemand the CPU will go
down to lowest freq as soon as the load will decreased. And the measurement
shows that the CPU load will decrease faster
Hi Viresh,
I never use performance governor, but I want improved performance with ondemand.
Why do you suspect significant increased power? With ondemand the CPU will go
down to lowest freq as soon as the load will decreased. And the measurement
shows that the CPU load will decrease faster
On 4 April 2013 12:17, stratosk strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
Why do you suspect significant increased power? With ondemand the CPU will
go down to lowest freq as soon as the load will decreased. And the
measurement shows that the CPU load will decrease faster (because of faster
I agree that we will have false alarms but this will not be a total waste of
power since the load will be more than 50 (the default grad_up_threshold value).
So, I don't think there will be *significant* increase in power. Though, I
don't know a way to prove this with numbers.
Thanks,
Stratos
Hi Stratos,
On 4 April 2013 05:00, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> I tried to do some measurements simulating a CPU load with a loop that simply
> counts
> an integer. The first test simulates a CPU load that lasts 2 x sampling_rate
> = ~ 2us.
> The second ~4us and the third ~6us.
>
On 04/03/2013 02:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:13:56 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 3 April 2013 12:01, stratosk wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, I don't understand.
>>> The goal of this patch is not energy saving.
>>
>> He probably misunderstood it...
>>
>>> The goal is to
On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:13:56 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 3 April 2013 12:01, stratosk wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand.
> > The goal of this patch is not energy saving.
>
> He probably misunderstood it...
>
> > The goal is to detect CPU load as soon as possible to increase
On 3 April 2013 12:01, stratosk wrote:
> I'm sorry, I don't understand.
> The goal of this patch is not energy saving.
He probably misunderstood it...
> The goal is to detect CPU load as soon as possible to increase frequency.
>
> Could you please clarify this?
But he is looking for some
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
The goal of this patch is not energy saving.
The goal is to detect CPU load as soon as possible to increase frequency.
Could you please clarify this?
Thanks,
Stratos
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 06:49:14 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>>
Hi Stratos,
On 4 April 2013 05:00, Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
I tried to do some measurements simulating a CPU load with a loop that simply
counts
an integer. The first test simulates a CPU load that lasts 2 x sampling_rate
= ~ 2us.
The second ~4us and the third
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
The goal of this patch is not energy saving.
The goal is to detect CPU load as soon as possible to increase frequency.
Could you please clarify this?
Thanks,
Stratos
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 06:49:14 PM Stratos Karafotis
On 3 April 2013 12:01, stratosk strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
The goal of this patch is not energy saving.
He probably misunderstood it...
The goal is to detect CPU load as soon as possible to increase frequency.
Could you please clarify this?
But he is
On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:13:56 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 3 April 2013 12:01, stratosk strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
The goal of this patch is not energy saving.
He probably misunderstood it...
The goal is to detect CPU load as soon as possible to
On 04/03/2013 02:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:13:56 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 3 April 2013 12:01, stratosk strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
The goal of this patch is not energy saving.
He probably misunderstood it...
The goal is
On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 06:49:14 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 04:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Do you have any numbers indicating that this actually makes things better?
> >
> > Rafael
>
> No, I don't.
> The expected behaviour after this patch is to "force" max frequency
On 04/02/2013 04:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Do you have any numbers indicating that this actually makes things better?
>
> Rafael
No, I don't.
The expected behaviour after this patch is to "force" max frequency few
sampling periods earlier.
The idea was to increase system responsiveness
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 12:27:34 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 03:56 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis
> >
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar
> >
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> In case you are interested
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 12:27:34 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 02/22/2013 03:56 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
On 04/02/2013 04:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Do you have any numbers indicating that this actually makes things better?
Rafael
No, I don't.
The expected behaviour after this patch is to force max frequency few
sampling periods earlier.
The idea was to increase system responsiveness
On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 06:49:14 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 04/02/2013 04:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Do you have any numbers indicating that this actually makes things better?
Rafael
No, I don't.
The expected behaviour after this patch is to force max frequency few
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 12:27:34 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 03:56 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis
> >
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar
> >
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> In case you are interested
On 02/22/2013 03:56 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar
>
Hi Rafael,
In case you are interested in this patch I rebased it to the latest
linux-pm/bleeding-edge.
Thanks,
Stratos
On 02/22/2013 03:56 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
Hi Rafael,
In case you are interested in this patch I rebased it to
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 12:27:34 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
On 02/22/2013 03:56 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
On Friday, February 22, 2013 11:27:09 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>
> >> Instead of checking only the absolute value of CPU load_freq to increase
> >> frequency, we detect forthcoming CPU
On Friday, February 22, 2013 11:27:09 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
Instead of checking only the absolute value of CPU load_freq to increase
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> Instead of checking only the absolute value of CPU load_freq to increase
>> frequency, we detect forthcoming CPU load rise and increase frequency
>> earlier.
>>
>> Every sampling rate,
On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> Thanks again. Following V3 with your suggestion.
>
> Regards,
> Stratos
>
> ---8<
> Instead of checking only the absolute value of CPU load_freq to increase
> frequency, we detect
Hi,
On 02/21/2013 05:33 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Again,
>
> int boost_freq = 0;
>
> if (od_tuners->early_demand) {
> if (load_freq > dbs_info->prev_load_freq && (load_freq
> - dbs_info->prev_load_freq >
> od_tuners->grad_up_threshold *
Hi,
On 02/21/2013 05:33 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Again,
int boost_freq = 0;
if (od_tuners-early_demand) {
if (load_freq dbs_info-prev_load_freq (load_freq
- dbs_info-prev_load_freq
od_tuners-grad_up_threshold * policy-cur)) {
On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
Thanks again. Following V3 with your suggestion.
Regards,
Stratos
---8
Instead of checking only the absolute value of CPU load_freq to increase
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 21 February 2013 23:09, Stratos Karafotis strat...@semaphore.gr wrote:
Instead of checking only the absolute value of CPU load_freq to increase
frequency, we detect forthcoming CPU load rise and increase frequency
44 matches
Mail list logo
