From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: userspace not supported for longrun? Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:28:04 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040602132804.GC13782@poupinou.org> References: <6BE4F22C-B37D-11D8-B4AF-003065EE23A0@connact.com> <20040601093110.GE7926@poupinou.org> <005701c44833$71e8ca30$6900a8c0@DEVELOPER> <20040602121916.GA8781@dominikbrodowski.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040602121916.GA8781@dominikbrodowski.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Wayne Wylupski , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 02:19:17PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:52:05PM -0400, Wayne Wylupski wrote: > > Thank you. The issue is that Fedora Core 2 ships with 'cpuspeed' as a > > service, which fails on machines with Crusoe chips because it assumes > > there's a userspace governor without first checking whether there it is > > available. > > > > Would it really violate patents if the userspace governor were allowed > > to work along the existing policies ("powersave" and "performance")? > > No, that's a purely technical issue: The Crusoe chip can only be set to a > _frequency range_, and the chip itself (actually, the Code Morphing > Software) decides which actual frequency is best for the current workload. You can run a crusoe chip on a fixed frequency. Some people also think that on some situation, the longrun will consume more power than their algorithm (search for "vertigo OSDI2002", I don't remmeber the exact link) for an example. Of course the userspace stuff is completely useless anyway. Cheers, -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.