[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080321154124.668969a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:41:24 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Cc: cpufreq@...ts.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Expose cpufreq coordination requirements
regardless of coordination mechanism
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:43:54 -0700
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Currently, affected_cpus shows which CPUs need to have their frequency
> coordinated in software. When hardware coordination is in use, the
> contents of this file appear the same as when no coordination is
> required. This can lead to some confusion among user-space programs,
> for example, that do not know that extra coordination is required to
> force a CPU core to a particular speed to control power consumption.
>
> To fix this, create a "related_cpus" attribute that always displays
> the coordination map regardless of whatever coordination strategy
> the cpufreq driver uses (sw or hw). If the cpufreq driver does not
> provide a value, fall back to policy->cpus.
I was going to ding you for not updating the kernel->userspace API
documentation. But it seems that none of this interface is documented
anyway :(
--
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