From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] examples/power: fix oob frequency oscillations
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:16:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dd000981-22f5-409e-8c2f-4c9aa577eb38@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2092105.X2fBbGLaSI@xps>
On 01-Nov-19 11:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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?
>
I believe he was responding to my question about the algorithm's bias.
Now that the matter is resolved,
Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-04 10:16 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
2019-11-04 10:16 ` Burakov, Anatoly [this message]
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=dd000981-22f5-409e-8c2f-4c9aa577eb38@intel.com \
--to=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=david.hunt@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).