On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 16:32:31 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Are you sure that the 'policy' can be accessed from compute_energy()?
> It can be from schedutil freq switch path, but I'm not use about our
> feec()..
Right, I was just looking at cpufreq_cpu_get() and we'll have locking
issue in
Hi Quentin,
On 4/15/21 4:20 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 16:14:46 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:59:54PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 15:34:53 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:16:35PM
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:04:34PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 15:12:08 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:12:05PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > Hi Vincent,
> > >
> > > On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort
On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 16:14:46 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:59:54PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 15:34:53 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:16:35PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > On
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:59:54PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 15:34:53 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:16:35PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > > > ---
On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 14:59:54 (+), Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 15:34:53 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:16:35PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > > > ---
On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 15:12:08 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:12:05PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > > Some SoCs, such as the sd855 have OPPs within the same
On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 15:34:53 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:16:35PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > +++
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:16:35PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> >
> > #include "sched.h"
> >
> > +#include
> >
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:12:05PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > Some SoCs, such as the sd855 have OPPs within the same performance domain,
> > whose cost is higher than others with a higher frequency. Even
On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>
> #include "sched.h"
>
> +#include
> #include
> #include
>
> @@ -164,6 +165,9 @@ static unsigned int
Hi Vincent,
On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> Some SoCs, such as the sd855 have OPPs within the same performance domain,
> whose cost is higher than others with a higher frequency. Even though
> those OPPs are interesting from a cooling perspective, it makes
Some SoCs, such as the sd855 have OPPs within the same performance domain,
whose cost is higher than others with a higher frequency. Even though
those OPPs are interesting from a cooling perspective, it makes no sense
to use them when the device can run at full capacity. Those OPPs handicap
the
We (Power team in Arm) are working with an experimental kernel for the
Google's Pixel4 to evaluate and improve the current mainline performance
and energy consumption on a real life device with Android.
The SD855 SoC found in this phone has several OPPs that are inefficient.
I.e. despite a lower
14 matches
Mail list logo
