lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:4.081 / U:0.192 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site