Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introducing cpuidle: core cpuidle infrastructure
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Adam Belay <abelay@novell.com>,
       Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070213012201.GA27685@redhat.com>
References: <20070212103925.A12078@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
	 <20070213012201.GA27685@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Intel International BV
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:58:09 +0100
Message-Id: <1171353489.12771.42.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 775
Lines: 17


> The only differentiator that I can think of would be latency, but that seems
> to be a) covered in a different tunable, and b) probably wouldn't affect
> most people enough where it matters.
> 

and for latency the kernel already has a policy thing that tracks the
maximum latency allowed.... if we need to give the user a knob to shoot
himself into the foot with that one should probably be exported instead
(although I'm still convinced it's a mistake since our beloved userspace
WILL abuse it in the most unimaginable ways)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/