From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: RE: OnDemand governor vs. work queue Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 07:48:27 +1000 Message-ID: <1117057707.5076.23.camel@gaston> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB6004D3529A@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB6004D3529A@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> 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=gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Bruno Ducrot > Agreed. For the larger latency transitions, ondemand governor should > use its own thread rather than keventd. Probably, it may make sense to > have separate threads for each CPU as well in that case (as otherwise > this thread will end up being moved around from one CPU to other. I will > > look at this in a couple of weeks unless someone beats me to it and > sends the patch before that :). A per-CPU thread could be a custom work queue (easy to implement form current code) but also a resource waste. I don't think there is that much of a problem having that thread moved around. Ben.