Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] Weighted approach to gather and use history in TEO
 governor
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.ibm.com>,
        pratik.sampat@in.ibm.com, pratik.r.sampat@gmail.com
References: <20200511141055.43029-1-psampat@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200511141055.43029-2-psampat@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200512173722.GM2978@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <09b8bf40-e371-e1eb-d77e-6c676f22dd29@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAJZ5v0jOGRQv1EUEhkba30OKuS8aupdoGConKJH9C=R6DxptFA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Pratik Sampat <psampat@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <47e3d97d-7dd3-85f5-d790-42b95760c64e@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 21:05:37 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0jOGRQv1EUEhkba30OKuS8aupdoGConKJH9C=R6DxptFA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 13/05/20 8:19 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 7:31 AM Pratik Sampat <psampat@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for your comment.
>>
>>
>> On 12/05/20 11:07 pm, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> Just a quick note..
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:40:55PM +0530, Pratik Rajesh Sampat wrote:
>>>
>>>> +    /*
>>>> +     * Rearrange the weight distribution of the state, increase the weight
>>>> +     * by the LEARNING RATE % for the idle state that was supposed to be
>>>> +     * chosen and reduce by the same amount for rest of the states
>>>> +     *
>>>> +     * If the weights are greater than (100 - LEARNING_RATE) % or lesser
>>>> +     * than LEARNING_RATE %, do not increase or decrease the confidence
>>>> +     * respectively
>>>> +     */
>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < drv->state_count; i++) {
>>>> +            unsigned int delta;
>>>> +
>>>> +            if (idx == -1)
>>>> +                    break;
>>>> +            if (i ==  idx) {
>>>> +                    delta = (LEARNING_RATE * cpu_data->state_mat[last_idx][i]) / 100;
>>> 100 is a crap number to divide by as a computer. We bio-puddings happend
>>> to have 10 digits, so 100 makes sense to us, but it does not to our
>>> binary friends.
>>>
>>>
>> Absolutely! I just wrote the code exactly the way I did the Math on paper,
>> definitely need to figure out an optimal way of doing things.
> There is no particular reason to use percent in computations at all.
> You may as well use 1/1024 parts instead (and then use shifts instead
> of divisions).

Yes you're right. Looking at it now the whole percent system and divisions
does seem quite unnecessary and we can achieve it rather with bitwise
operations.

Thanks!