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
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,
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
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
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.
On 9 April 2013 20:52, Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
Hi Viresh and Vincent,
On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee
Our
Hi Vincent,
On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
Hi Viresh and Vincent,
On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee
Our approach is a bit different than cpufreq_ondemand
On 10 April 2013 10:44, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
Hi Viresh and Vincent,
On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM,
Hi Vincent,
On 10 April 2013 10:44, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
Hi Viresh and Vincent,
On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
On Mon,
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 special
On 10 April 2013 11:38, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 10 April 2013 10:44, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
wrote:
Hi Viresh and Vincent,
On 9 April
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
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
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
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
jonghwa3@samsung.com wrote:
Purpose
One of the problem of ondemand is that it considers the most busy
cpu only while doesn't care how many
On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com 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
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 1:54
Hi Viresh and Vincent,
On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com 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
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
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
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
Purpose
One of the problem of ondemand is that it considers the most busy
cpu only while doesn't care how
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee jonghwa3@samsung.com wrote:
Purpose
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
