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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 22:00:24 EST