On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 23:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > untested patch to add this to cpufreq; this is probably a good idea in
> > general even if using the latency framework doesn't end up being used
> > for fixing this regression...
> >
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.23-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c.org 2007-08-20
> > 22:58:32.000000000 -0700
> > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2007-08-20
> > 23:02:21.000000000 -0700
> > @@ -1604,6 +1604,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_set_policy(struct c
> > if (ret)
> > goto error_out;
> >
> > +
> > + if (system_latency_constraint() < policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency) {
>
> That looks broken. "system_latency_constraint()" is in us, but
> transition_latency is in ns, afaik.
>
> But adding a "/ 1000" to turn the ns into us, and it migth even work.
eh woops yes indeed.
Shows me for not testing; I'll do that tomorrow when I'm more awake
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via
http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
