From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] If a CPU gets onlined set the governor to the one that is run on other CPUs Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:21:20 -0500 Message-ID: <20061126222120.GB26600@redhat.com> References: <1164296237.3721.395.camel@queen.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1164296237.3721.395.camel@queen.suse.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cpufreq-bounces@lists.linux.org.uk Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Thomas Renninger Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 04:37:17PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder whether there is any real use to allow userspace to > run different governors on different CPUs? > This complicates things (in kernel and userspace) and > if not really needed I'd link up all > sys/../cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor files? I've thought about this a few times, and I agree that it's fairly pointless, especially with ht/multicore CPUs. Given it doesn't really bring anything but added complexity for userspace, I'm inclined to agree that this is the direction we should take unless someone has a compelling argument? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk