From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Haldar Subject: Re: Dynamic frequency governor Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:58:44 -0700 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <3F90D694.5020702@uci.edu> References: <1066453236.7590.4.camel@ixodes.goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1066453236.7590.4.camel@ixodes.goop.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: cpufreq list Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 14:14, Moore, Robert wrote: > > >>Hi all, >> >>I've been chartered to implement a multi-state algorithm for Linux; >>this will be a new governor that adjusts the CPU frequency based upon >>percent CPU utilization as reported from the kernel idle handler. >> >>Has any work been done (or is being done) in this area? I don't want to >>rewrite the wheel. >> >> > >Speedfreq (http://www.goop.org/~jeremy/speedfreq) does this in >userspace. I'm not sure there's much win in putting it into the kernel, >but a better idle measurement would be nice (I use /proc/uptime, which >can only be reliably polled a couple of times a second). > I have a very similar tool called LAMP - http://gandalf.ics.uci.edu/~haldar/lamp/ . I didn't know about your program until this post. I agree with you that this should be in user-space, not in kernel space. Vivek.