From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rafa=B3_Bilski?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] minor optimizations to ondemand governor Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:00:30 +0200 Message-ID: <44A582DE.6080606@interia.pl> References: <20060630191119.GB11520@dominikbrodowski.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060630191119.GB11520@dominikbrodowski.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="iso-8859-1" To: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk Dominik Brodowski napisa=B3(a): > On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 03:33:39AM -0400, Brown, Len wrote: >> =20 >>> Longer term, I'd really like to see conservative & ondemand >>> sharing more code as a separate helper .o file. They're similar >>> in so many ways, it seems silly to duplicate so much code. >> What value does cpufreq_conservative.c add over ondemand? >> >> Are there some workloads we can measure to prove that >> cpufreq_conservative.c should, or should-not exist? >=20 > IIRC it's less a matter of workload than of which CPU you have -- not all > do support fast jumps to the highest frequency? Or do they now? >=20 > Dominik Not all users want governor reaction on glitches in CPU usage. Rafa=B3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interaktywne mapy miast na http://map24.interia.pl