On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 23:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >
> > > untested patch to add this to cpufreq; this is probably a good idea in
> > > general even if using the latency framework doesn't end up being used
> > > for fixing this regression...
> > >
> > >
> > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c.org 2007-08-20
> > > 22:58:32.000000000 -0700
> > > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2007-08-20
> > > 23:02:21.000000000 -0700
> > > @@ -1604,6 +1604,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_set_policy(struct c
> > > if (ret)
> > > goto error_out;
> > >
> > > +
> > > + if (system_latency_constraint() < policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency) {
> >
> > That looks broken. "system_latency_constraint()" is in us, but
> > transition_latency is in ns, afaik.
> >
> > But adding a "/ 1000" to turn the ns into us, and it migth even work.
>
>
> eh woops yes indeed.
> Shows me for not testing; I'll do that tomorrow when I'm more awake
Side note: I think we migth want to also have some way of telling the user
*why* we're not doing frequency changes. Maybe as simple as a rate-limited
printk() or something.
Otherwise, we'll easily be in a situation where some poor sod ends up
running constantly at lowest frequency, and no way of even seeing why.
Which sounds like a debugging nightmare.
If the kernel spits out the occasional warning about the latency
violation, at least we get notified about there being potential problems.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
