Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.5.32] CPU frequency and voltage scaling (0/4) | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | 29 Aug 2002 00:26:18 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 21:29, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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_.
Right and for the one in one hundred that is does I need a policy that suits it
> 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.
One of the policies I need from the kernel is "run at the frequency I told you to run". Its a policy, its not the general case policy. The /proc file is that policy.
> 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.
99% of people should be using something like ACPI.
cpufreq is cpu speed control not power management policy. I agree entirely that most people should not be using echo "500" >/proc/... as a power management policy.
Likewise /dev/hda is not a file system and peopel should not be using dd to store there files.
In both cases the ability to do so is sometimes useful and shouldnt be excluded.
- 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/
|  |