On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 1:21 PM Matthew Garrett <mj...@google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 1:00 PM Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer > <me@mathieu.digital> wrote: > > > I'm late to the party but it seems allowing MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS > > has the downside of flagging the kernel as tainted without telling you > > why if you use something like x86_energy_perf_policy (from > > tools/power/x86/x86_energy_perf_policy) which itself is used by tuned. > > I initially pushed back against a kernel interface for > MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS (cc: Len Brown, who tried mightily to > convince me I was wrong here) on the grounds that it was exporting an > implementation detail rather than providing a generic interface, and > that it was something that could be done via userland instead. I > thought we'd end up with more examples of similar functionality and > could tie it into something more reasonable - history has proven me > wrong on that. I think it's probably reasonable to dust off the driver > that Len submitted however many years ago and push that into the > kernel now.
But ha ok based on Borislav's response it looks like someone's already done that.
