* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 15:23 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > I think the biggest mistake we ever made with cpufreq was making it > > so configurable. If we redesign it, just say no to plugin governors, > > and > > yes to a lot fewer sysfs knobs. > > > > So, provide mechanism to kill off all the governors, and there's a > > migration path from what we have now to something that just works > > in a lot more cases, while remaining configurable enough for the > > corner-cases. > > On the other hand, the need for schedulable contxts may not > necessarily go away. We will support it, but the *sane* hw solution is where frequency transitions can be done atomically. Most workloads change their characteristics very quickly, and so does their power management profile change. The user-space driven policy model failed for that reason: it was *way* too slow in reacting) - and slow hardware transitions suck for a similar reason as well. We accomodate all hardware as well as we can, but we *design* for proper hardware. So Peter is right, this should be done properly. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
