On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:52:06 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Guillaume Chazarain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100, > > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ??crit : > > > > > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() > > > maintains offsets itself. > > > > Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to compensate > > large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while my offset > > arranges for a very smooth frequency transition. > > yes, but that would be easy to fix up via calling > sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event(0) when doing a frequency transition, > without burdening the normal sched_clock() codepath with the offset. > See the attached latest version. can this deal with dual/quad core where the frequency of one core changes if the sofware changes the frequency of the other core? -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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/
