Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

Close

#6 Delayed profile change

open
None
5
2004-09-17
2004-09-17
Anonymous
No

Would it make sense to add a variable to a profile
which would delay the change to another profile? Or
rule, I'm not sure where it would apply best. I would
like cpufreqd to stay in a certain profile just a
little bit longer, even if a slower profile has more
hits. I find that when my cpu starts working hard, most
likely it will work hard, pause, work hard again. but
if the speed profile keeps changing, there's that lag
before going back to full speed. Adding a delay would
smooth things out.

Ex:
[Profile]
name=full
maxfreq=3066590
minfreq=3066590
policy=performance
delay=5

[Profile]
name=coma
maxfreq=383323
minfreq=383323
policy=powersave

cpufreqd would stay at full speed for 5 seconds before
dropping back to coma. Or maybe it could mean for 5
sampling intervals. Then at the 6th interval (or
second), it can pick another profile.

Discussion

1 2 > >> (Page 1 of 2)
  • Logged In: NO

    edit: after thinking a little more, having the delay
    variable in a rule makes more sense.

    you can also differentiate between a delay in seconds or a
    delay in sampling intervals by using
    delay=5s
    delay=5i

     
  • Logged In: NO

    edit: after thinking a little more, having the delay
    variable in a rule makes more sense.

    you can also differentiate between a delay in seconds or a
    delay in sampling intervals by using
    delay=5s
    delay=5i

     
  • Mattia Dongili
    Mattia Dongili
    2004-09-17

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=584271

    yes, I noticed this behaviour long ago...
    You could try setting overlapping values for your rules,
    thus you will have some kind of "limbo" where 2 rules get
    the same score and only one of them will stay active during
    this limbo.

    let me know, otherwise I'll try to think something else.
    Your idea could lead to problems as: if you system status is
    varying a lot, summing delays between profiles could make a
    rule to never apply even if it's the most appropriate...

     
  • Mattia Dongili
    Mattia Dongili
    2004-09-17

    • assigned_to: nobody --> mattia-san
     
  • Dill
    Dill
    2004-09-18

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1123952

    have an account now, wish I could remove the extra post, not
    sure how it got there.

    I'm not yet sure how overlapping values would work.
    I'm patching it myself to do the interval delay idea, just
    for shits&giggles.

     
  • Mattia Dongili
    Mattia Dongili
    2004-09-18

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=584271

    good, let me know if you get the desired result, I'll
    consider your patch for inclusion.

    about overlapping values simply create the your rules like:
    [Rule]
    cpu_interval=30-100
    ...
    [Rule]
    cpu_interval=0-70
    ...

    so in the 30-70 interval both rules can be valid choices.
    You'll get some kind of delay between switches. Also
    increasing the polling frequency can give the result of
    delayed frequency switches.

     
  • Dill
    Dill
    2004-09-18

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1123952

    I have it running now, seems ok. So far I think it's too
    much of a dirty hack to be used by mainstream, needs refining.

    I guess I'm looking for some sort of
    aggressive-increase/passive-decrease logic.
    I'm thinking about changing it again so that any faster rule
    picked will be applied without hesistation, but a slower
    rule will get delayed.

    Of course, I'm sure there is some mathematically correct way
    to compute what frequency to pick, based on load history,
    etc. Even throw in Fourier transformation and state machines
    or something.
    heh, and no doubt so much computation would end up skewing
    the load.

     
  • Dill
    Dill
    2004-09-18

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1123952

    I have it running now, seems ok. So far I think it's too
    much of a dirty hack to be used by mainstream, needs refining.

    I guess I'm looking for some sort of
    aggressive-increase/passive-decrease logic.
    I'm thinking about changing it again so that any faster rule
    picked will be applied without hesistation, but a slower
    rule will get delayed.

    Of course, I'm sure there is some mathematically correct way
    to compute what frequency to pick, based on load history,
    etc. Even throw in Fourier transformation and state machines
    or something.
    heh, and no doubt so much computation would end up skewing
    the load.

     
  • Dill
    Dill
    2004-09-18

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1123952

    I have it running now, seems ok. So far I think it's too
    much of a dirty hack to be used by mainstream, needs refining.

    I guess I'm looking for some sort of
    aggressive-increase/passive-decrease logic.
    I'm thinking about changing it again so that any faster rule
    picked will be applied without hesistation, but a slower
    rule will get delayed.

    Of course, I'm sure there is some mathematically correct way
    to compute what frequency to pick, based on load history,
    etc. Even throw in Fourier transformation and state machines
    or something.
    heh, and no doubt so much computation would end up skewing
    the load.

     
  • Jose Marino
    Jose Marino
    2005-04-11

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=654238

    Maybe instead of a delay in seconds or cycles, it would make
    more sense to introduce an 'at least x hits' rule.

    So each cycle the profile that gets the higher score gets a
    counter increased, if this counter reaches the 'at least x
    hits' number, it switches to that profile.

    In the case of the scenario initially suggested: heavy load,
    short pause, heavy load, ....

    set the 'full' profile with 'at least x hits'=1
    set the 'coma' profile with 'at least x hits'=3

    This way it'd be less likely that we switch to the 'coma'
    profile during heavy load.

     
1 2 > >> (Page 1 of 2)