| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 22:37:33 +0200 From: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr> To: David C Niemi <dniemi@...isign.com> CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] cpufreq: conservative: Fix sampling_down_factor functionality Hi David, On 03/05/2013 04:21 PM, David C Niemi wrote: > > I should clarify -- I wrote the sampling_down_factor in the *ondemand* governor. I chose the name of the parameter based on the vaguely similar parameter in the conservative governor, but the documentation that was referenced (about it only applying at top speed and the comment about skipping evaluation opportunities when it is active) was written by me in reference to the ondemand governor. It could be that someone backported some of the ondemand sampling_down_factor's behavior to the conservative governor. > > I'd like to ask -- what is the intended use of the conservative governor these days as differentiated from the ondemand governor? At one time it seemed more oriented towards power savings, but the ondemand governor had picked up most or all of its power-saving features. Thanks for the information. I would agree about the use of conservative, but I think that I'm not the right person to answer this question. :) Regards, Stratos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists