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

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:08:50AM -0400, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> If the OS only looks at Highest, Lowest, Delivered registers and only
> writes to Desired, then we're not really any different than how we do
> things today in the CPUFreq layer.

The thing is; we're already struggling to make 'sense' of x86 as it
stands today. And it looks like this CPPC stuff makes the behaviour even
less certain.

> Or even in the case of
> intel_pstate, if you map Desired to PERF_CTL and get value of
> Delivered by using aperf/mperf ratios (as my experimental driver
> does), then we can still maintain the existing system performance. It
> seems like if an OS can make use of the additional information then it
> should be net win for overall power savings and performance
> enhancement. Also, using the CPPC descriptors, we should be able to
> have one driver across X86 and ARM64. (possibly others too.)

Yikes, so aaargh64 will go do creative power management too?

And worse; it will go do ACPI? Welcome to the world of guaranteed BIOS
fail :-(

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=7wyo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----