[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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

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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.105 / U:8.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site