On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 08:33:50AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 8/20/2013 8:29 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > >> > >>Of course, if we can get away with completely removing all of that > >>(which I think Arjan suggested was a real possibility) then that would > >>be ever so much better still :-) > > > >Would be lovely. But I don't know much about cpufreq, I hope somebody who's > >familiar with that code can handle this. Then once there are no more users > >of get_cpu_iowait_sleep_time() I can simply zap and clean the tick/time > >related > >code. > > it's just doing the "idle = 100 - busy% - iowait%" calculation. > (with the later part only for Intel cpus iirc) > > in a perfect world the scheduler would be doing that calculation in the first > place ;-) > > removing the later part will impact performance some on specific workloads, > but most Intel cpus that this applies to should not be using cpufreq anymore > anyway.
Are there other users than intel? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/