[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071130142058.816d1693.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:20:58 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Cc: lkml@....ca, abelay@...ell.com, lenb@...nel.org, mlord@...ox.com,
rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch added to -mm tree
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:06:55 -0800
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> wrote:
Please dont go off-list like this. I put Mark's original mailing list cc's
back.
>
> I will have to Nack this. The reason max_cstate was initentionally
> removed due to couple of reasons:
It broke userspace without any warning or migration period, afaict.
> 1) All in kernel users of max_cstate should rather be using
> pm_qos/latency interfaces. All such max_cstate usages must already be
> migrated.
That code isn't merged.
> 2) Supporting max_cstate as a dynamic parameter cleanly is no longer
> possible in acpi/processor_idle.c as the C-state policy has moved to
> cpuidle instead. It can be done if it is needed. But, just below patch
> will not really work with cpuidle.
>
> Selecting max_cstate at boot time as a debug option still works without
> this patch.
>
> So, just this patch will not get back the functionality with cpuidle.
> Infact changing it at run time will have no effect. Question however is:
> Is there a real need to revive this parameter so that user can change
> max_cstate at run time?
It is not known whether Mark is actually writing to this thing. Perhaps
read-only permissions would be a suitable fix?
-
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