Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:29:25 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.5.32] CPU frequency and voltage scaling (0/4) |
| |
On 28 Aug 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > If you look at the papers on the original ARM cpufreq code you'll see a > case where very long granuality user driven policy is pretty much > essential. The kernel sometimes does not have enough information.
Alan, that is _not_ the point here.
It's ok to tell the kernel these "long-term" policies. But it has to be told as a POLICY, not as a random number. Because I can show you a hundred other cases where the user mode code does _not_have_a_clue_.
That's my argument. The kernel should be given a _policy_, not a "this frequency". Because a frequency is provably not enough, and can be quite hurtful.
And I do not want to get people used to passing in frequencies, when I can absolutely _prove_ that it's the wrong thing for 99% of all uses.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |