On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> I thought just the 'ondemand' governor was a problem?
The ondemand governor seems to be singled out not because it has unique
problems, but because it seems to be used by Fedora Core for some strange
reason.
I would judge that any bugs in cpufreq_ondemand.c are likely equally
evident in cpufreq_conservative.c, for example. I think the two have the
same background, and seem to have the same broken locking.
> That thing has been broken since day 1 AFAICT. There are lots of
> reports of problems with it on the list.
See above. I seriously doubt this is ondemand-specific. The whole cpufreq
locking seems to be very screwed up.
The current -git tree will complain about some of the more obvious
problems. If you see a "Lukewarm IQ" message, it's a sign of somebody
re-taking a cpu lock that is already held.
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
