tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: A simple cpufreq(9)

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:14:13AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> For the in-kernel use it should be completely irrelevant what the
> property is. Any automatic mechanism should only care about the
> associated properties (latency, reduction in power consumption etc). I
> don't see any of that addressed at this point either.

So let's look at this from a different POV.

Here is a datasheet for the reliable information:

        1. Maximum and minimum (or on/off).

        2. Idle times, etc. (MI stuff).

        3. Transition latency (easily simulated).

Here is a datasheet for unreliable and unknown data:

        1. Actual clock rate.


           We all know what est(4) and powernow(4) are like; no policy
           should rely on any intermediate values that comes out of these
           two. As usual, with ACPI there are a lot of known bugs about
           incorrect values.


           This is the case with ichlpcib(4) and piixpcib(4). Might be the
           case on some embedded/exotic things as well.


           If the information is available from a datasheet, requires
           tabulation for each CPU model.

        2. Power per state.

           In majority of cases this is entirely unknown, and if coming from
           the BIOS, too unreliable.

I am quite familiar with the Linux cpufreq subsystem and I am not convinced
at all that we want something like that. I vote for a simple on/off boolean.

- Jukka.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index