From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>
Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] examples/power: fix oob frequency oscillations
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 00:00:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2092105.X2fBbGLaSI@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0c0b07e4-ef84-056f-bffa-06a402fa99f6@intel.com>
29/10/2019 15:05, Hunt, David:
> On 27/10/2019 18:35, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 06/08/2019 13:18, Thomas Monjalon:
> >> 26/07/2019 12:15, Burakov, Anatoly:
> >>> So it's biased towards scaling up quickly, but it's doing that over a
> >>> period. Please correct me if i'm wrong as i'm not really familiar with
> >>> this codebase, but, assuming the window size is long enough, you could
> >>> be missing opportunities to scale down? For example, if you get a short
> >>> burst of 1's followed by a long burst of zeroes, you're not scaling down
> >>> until you go through the entire buffer and overwrite all of the values.
> >>> I guess that's the point of oscillation prevention, but maybe you could
> >>> improve the "scale-up" part by only checking a few recent values, rather
> >>> than the entire buffer?
> >> This patch is deferred to 19.11.
> > Any news for this patch?
> >
> The algorithm was intended to be biased (strongly) towards the scale-up,
> for performance reasons. If there is a single "scale-up" in the entire
> array, then we stay up until the entire array agrees that we can scale
> down. If the user wants to relax this, then simply reduce the size of
> the array, which will have the same affect. But I had tested it with an
> array size of 32, and that gave the best results for my use cases.
I'm not sure to understand. The patch is rejected?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-01 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-24 13:18 David Hunt
2019-07-26 10:15 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-08-06 11:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-27 18:35 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-29 14:05 ` Hunt, David
2019-11-01 23:00 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2019-11-04 10:16 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-11-12 7:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2092105.X2fBbGLaSI@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=david.hunt@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).