From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: proposed sysfs semantic change.
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:41:54 -0400
Message-ID: <20100812164154.GA7428@redhat.com>
References: <20100811215443.GA28343@redhat.com>
 <871va3eql1.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <871va3eql1.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <cpufreq.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: cpufreq@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:35:54PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
 > Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> writes:
 > 
 > > Users with dual/quad core systems can currently set individual cores to
 > > have different governors (and drivers!), which doesn't really make a lot
 > > of sense.
 > 
 > Why not? Imagine a system that is partitioned using cpusets or cgroups
 > for different sockets and the partitions runs different workloads.
 > 
 > I could well imagine using different governours (= policies) 
 > for those different sockets.

Different sockets is fine. I'm talking about different cores within the same socket.

	Dave