On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:02:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Christian Krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This patch adds a cpufreq governor that takes the number of running spus
> into account. It's very similar to the ondemand governor, but not as complex.
> Instead of hacking spu load into the ondemand governor it might be easier to
> have cpufreq accepting multiple governors per cpu in future.
> Don't know if this is the right way, but it would keep the governors simple.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> Dave or other cpufreq people, can you take a look at this
> and add an Acked-by when you're happy?
It looks ok on a quick look through. I'm wondering about the multiple governors
thing though. This came up at last years power management summit, but no-one has
mentioned it since. I think it's possible we want to look at things like
this in the future, and not just for cell. I keep hearing mumblings about
future generations of x86's having dedicated coprocessors for certain tasks
that may benefit from the same thing.
> We have one prerequisite patch in the powerpc code (in spufs),
> so should it get merged through powerpc.git?
That's fine with me. Conflicts should be minimal if any at all,
I've got nothing queued up which touches that part of Kconfig/Makefile
One question I do have though, is how userspace scripts are supposed
to know they're to echo cbe_spu_governor into the relevant parts of
sysfs. I've not used anything with a cell. Do they expose the SPUs
as regular CPUs, or do they show up in a different part of the tree?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
