http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12482 ------- Comment #4 from jimsantelmo@xxxxxxxxx 2009-01-22 15:46 ------- I even had a wild notion of giving the scheduler some idea of the existence of the cpufreq code (see below). I was on lkml years and years ago, and had to get off, too much volume. Do I really need to join LKML, or is there another way route I might take that doesn't involve deleting hundreds of emails every day? Thanks for the comment, anyway. From http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4379: Just a quick thought: if the scheduler was aware of min, max and current cpu frequencies, it might be persuaded to schedule a designated cpufreq process whenever there was a great mismatch between load and cpu frequency, giving very rapid response and allowing slower polling to handle the gradual adjustments. While cluttering up the scheduler is undesirable, the information needed by cpufreq code comes from the scheduler and a case could be made for integrating cpu frequency control into the scheduler, in light of which adding just enough code to someplace like maybe find_idlest_cpu() or rebalancing code to know when the cpufreq needs checking might be considered permissible. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
