Re: [RFC v2 0/3][TESTS] LAB: Support for Legacy Application Boostergovernor - tests results

[Lukasz Majewski]

Hi Rafael,

> On Monday, May 27, 2013 06:54:49 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 27 May 2013 17:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Well, this really looks like software turbo modes, so let's call
> > > them "TURBO" instead of "OVERDRIVE"
> > 
> > Yes, it looks better.
> > 
> > > and I seem to remember having a switch for
> > > disabling/enabling turbo modes already.
> > 
> > This was added in intel_pstate driver and shows up in
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ directory..
> > 
> > But this feature belongs to a governor instance and so
> > will be present inside governor directory..
> > 
> > Specially for big LITTLE we want it to be per policy
> > specific. So may need to add a new one.
> 
> I was talking about /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost that
> appears to have been added by commit 615b730 (acpi-cpufreq: Add
> support for disabling dynamic overclocking).
> 
> That's in acpi-cpufreq, but since that setting seems to be generally
> useful, it may be a good idea to move it to the core somehow.

I think that Viresh wanted to add "boost" option to 
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cpufreq/ to be able to control boost
at separate cores (policies).

The localization, which you have proposed:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost

implies, that boost is a global feature (enabled for all cores and for
all available policies).

Which approach shall be used then? 


> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
> 



-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/