RE: [patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on cpufreq governor - v2

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Len Brown
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 8:38 pm

> >-----Original Message-----


Lets cross that bridge when we come to it.


Frankly, if somebody cares about power or performance,
they shouldn't be running powernowd/cpufreqd, and so
they should be blissfully ignorant and satisfied with the
default, which is 'balanced'.


We really do need a central place for userspace to communicate
power/performance bias policy to the kernel -- and for kernel drivers
of all types to pick up that policy.  I think that ideally
the sysfs interface should be generic, and that on systems with
this MSR, the MSR gets plugged into updates to that generic
interface.

I think that this driver exposing the MSR to cpufreq is useful,
but perhaps it is just a stepping stone to the generic I/F
that we really should implement...

Len Brown,
Intel Open Source Technology Center


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[patch 0/2] Support for IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS MSR - v2, venkatesh.pallipadi, (Thu Mar 4, 4:14 pm)
[patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on cpufreq ..., venkatesh.pallipadi, (Thu Mar 4, 4:14 pm)
RE: [patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on cpuf ..., Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Thu Mar 4, 4:34 pm)
RE: [patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on cpuf ..., Len Brown, (Thu Jun 3, 8:38 pm)