[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 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

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:0.100 / U:1.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site