re: A simple cpufreq(9)

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

> jruohonen%iki.fi@localhost (Jukka Ruohonen) writes:
> 
> >But how about
> 
> >     3. { 800 MHz, 805 MHz, 810 MHz, 815 MHz, 820 MHz, 1300 MHz, 1800 MHz }?
> >     4. And how about some ARM system that may export over 30 states,
> >           possibly with non-uniform intervals?
> 
> >Can outline a consistent algorithm for an user-space or in-kernel governor
> >to choose a state from these four examples?
> 
> Pick one low and one high value and select these when the core/cpu/machine
> is idle vs. when the machine is busy. Selecting the low and the high
> value is much easier for a human when you label it in terms of the
> specific platform intead of a misleading percentage.

i think that joerg's point is that the kernel<->user API is the
wrong place to be making these sorts of "humanisations".

without thinking about it too deeply, i agree with that POV, but
i also would much much rather _any usable_ cpufreq(9) over the
best one possible that isn't in-tree.


.mrg.