On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 22:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> and the C-state code will honor it. CPUFREQ doesn't honor it yet but
> that's easy to add..
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) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto error_out;
+ }
+
/* notification of the new policy */
blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
CPUFREQ_NOTIFY, policy);
-
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]
