On 6 June 2013 15:25, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > The correct "fix" for this whole deal is coupling cpufreq with > the scheduler, as it has been said so many times before. You need > "something" which can tell you whether raising the freq. is worth it or > not (i.e. the process is waiting on IO or is executing instructions). Linaro has got a blueprint in this direction but doesn't have any proof of concept or RFC patches to share. But that will happen soon. -- 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
