[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607241752290.29649@g5.osdl.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: remove cpu hotplug bustification in cpufreq.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> I thought just the 'ondemand' governor was a problem?
The ondemand governor seems to be singled out not because it has unique
problems, but because it seems to be used by Fedora Core for some strange
reason.
I would judge that any bugs in cpufreq_ondemand.c are likely equally
evident in cpufreq_conservative.c, for example. I think the two have the
same background, and seem to have the same broken locking.
> That thing has been broken since day 1 AFAICT. There are lots of
> reports of problems with it on the list.
See above. I seriously doubt this is ondemand-specific. The whole cpufreq
locking seems to be very screwed up.
The current -git tree will complain about some of the more obvious
problems. If you see a "Lukewarm IQ" message, it's a sign of somebody
re-taking a cpu lock that is already held.
Linus
-
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