lkml.org 
[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)
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.070 / U:11.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site