On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:16:29 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> doesnt the notifier still get run on the target CPU?
>
.... if and only if the BIOS actually gives correct information to the
OS.
In reality... that's not a very common thing on this field sadly
--
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/
[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]
