Re: [RFC 0/3] Experimental patchset for CPPC

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 06:42:51AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 8/15/2014 6:08 AM, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> >(b) we come up with ways to provide the bounds around a Desired value
> >using the information from the platform. (long term)
> >
> >I briefly looked at the x86 HWP (Hardware Performance States) in the
> >s/w manual again. Its essentially an implementation of CPPC. It seems
> >like X86 has implemented most if not all these registers as MSRs. I'm
> >really interested in knowing if anyone there is/has been working on
> >using them and what they found.
> 
> we've found that so far that there are two reasonable options
> 1) Let the OS device (old style)
> 2) Let the hardware decide (new style)
> 
> 2) is there in practice today in the turbo range (which is increasingly the whole thing)
> and the hardware can make decisions about power budgetting on a timescale the OS
> can never even dream of, so once you give control the the hardware (with CPPC or native)
> it's normally better to just get out of the way as OS.

OK, so we should just forget about 'power aware scheduling' for Intel?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=4PPn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----