From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH][DOCUMENTATION BUGFIX] latency in micro-, not nanoseconds Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:16:54 +0000 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20031110211654.GA10144@redhat.com> References: <20031104160816.GA9187@brodo.de> <20031110163209.GP10144@redhat.com> <20031104160816.GA9187@brodo.de> <20031110163209.GP10144@redhat.com> <20031110171533.GS21970@poupinou.org> <20031104160816.GA9187@brodo.de> <20031110163209.GP10144@redhat.com> <20031110171533.GS21970@poupinou.org> <20031110172246.GT10144@redhat.com> <20031110205029.GA7149@brodo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031110205029.GA7149@brodo.de> 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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: Ducrot Bruno , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:50:29PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > Actually, I'm wondering why we need this at all anyway.. > > To determine the "cost" of frequency and/or voltage transitions when doing > dynamic switching. If the system is unresponsive for too long a period of > time, dynamic switching doesn't make sense [at least when some sort of > real-time or "responsiveness" is needed]. Also, the time to needed switch > back to 100% of processing power should be added to the "overhead" idleness > on future load calculations of yet-to-be-written load-predicting cpufreq > governors. Ok, I can buy that. But it's not being used at all right now, right ? Dave