On Tue 10. Oct - 20:04:59, Peter Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 18:09 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm just looking over the 94cpufreq hook which sets the userspace governor
> > immediately before suspend. I think this was needed because of dead locks
> > of the ondemand governor in the past, right?
>
> Yes -- in fact, I don't think it's a problem any more, so we can
> probably just remove it soon, or just disable it in distro's packaging,
> but leave it in CVS. Maybe we should add some auto* stuff to disable
> individual scripts' installation by default.
Something else comes to my mind when thinking about the
distro-hook-directories I have proposed in another mail. We could add a
--with-hooks=(suse|fedora|gentoo) so that distros just can configure their
package this way and run make install and everythings they want gets
installed.
>
> > Wouldn't it be better to set the performance governor then? Because if
> > frequency is low and you set the userspace governor, frequency will keep
> > to be low if you have no userspace daemon caring about.
> >
> > Anyway, setting the performance governor would be a good idea in any case
> > because of compression and stuff we will have in the near future.
>
> Doesn't matter -- the machine isn't going to be _running_. And when it
> is running again, we're going to go back to the same governor that we
> had before. So basically, we're talking about ~2 seconds of runtime
> that this will effect.
>
> Since that's the case, I'd rather just leave it as "userspace", if only
> for the reason that it doesn't _do_ anything. Less stuff being done
> means less chances of having to hack on this again when a bug is
> introduced.
Tim mentioned in another mail that the userspace module doesn't need to be
available at all. So what speaks agains using 'performance', which is
available in all cases?
Regards,
Holger
_______________________________________________
Pm-utils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
