![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:16:29 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because > > > > > cpu_clock() maintains offsets itself. > > > > > > > > Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to > > > > compensate large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while > > > > my offset arranges for a very smooth frequency transition. > > > > > > yes, but that would be easy to fix up via calling > > > sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event(0) when doing a frequency > > > transition, without burdening the normal sched_clock() codepath > > > with the offset. See the attached latest version. > > > > can this deal with dual/quad core where the frequency of one core > > changes if the sofware changes the frequency of the other core? > > doesnt the notifier still get run on the target CPU? > .... if and only if the BIOS actually gives correct information to the OS. In reality... that's not a very common thing on this field sadly -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-12-08 21:21 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||