[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1171353489.12771.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:58:09 +0100
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Adam Belay <abelay@...ell.com>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introducing cpuidle: core cpuidle infrastructure
> The only differentiator that I can think of would be latency, but that seems
> to be a) covered in a different tunable, and b) probably wouldn't affect
> most people enough where it matters.
>
and for latency the kernel already has a policy thing that tracks the
maximum latency allowed.... if we need to give the user a knob to shoot
himself into the foot with that one should probably be exported instead
(although I'm still convinced it's a mistake since our beloved userspace
WILL abuse it in the most unimaginable ways)
-
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