Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 09:07:11PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > I don't have board right now to take the snapshot, but it would be > like: > > $ tree /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ > ├── affected_cpus > ├── bios_limit > ├── cpb > ├── cpuinfo_cur_freq

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 05:54:57PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:q > This indication isn't enough. On a single image solution, we need to > identify the system which needs support for multiple policies and i > still feel we need that variable type indication :) If the image is going to run also on sys

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:55:25PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > That's not completely true. There lies cpufreq directory in cpu/cpu*/ > too, where we have per policy stuff in cpu/cpu*/, like policy tunables > and stats. And the same is true for governor too. $ tree /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpu

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 03:17:21PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > multiple policies support in cpufreq should be optional and > > selectable in Kconfig so that systems which don't need that, don't > > have to see or use it. It is yet another feature which doesn't apply > > universally so we make su

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:51:33PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > We correlate things with cpus rather than policies and so the current > directory structure of cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/*** is the best suited ones. Ok, show me the details of that layout. How is that going to look? One thing I've come to re

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > All files which are directly present in cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/ folder. I am > not talking about governor tunables but policy tunables. Things like > scaling_[min]max_freq are policy tunables. No, on x86 those are the P-states frequencies.

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > There isn't lot of code that we have to keep inside the macro you > suggest. Its just an if else (with single line block), which would > give the parent kobject. Nothing else. > > I didn't wanted to create a macro for just that. For me

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 04:42:23PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Tricky part is the name of this routine: add_additional_sysfs_entries(). Now you're just being silly - this is just an example how to do it. If you want me to do it for ya, you need to send me your monthly salary. > And so, keeping t

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 05:54:18PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > One important point i would like to highlight is: governors directory > would be present in cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/ now instead of cpu/cpufreq/. Uh, hold on, isn't this breaking a bunch of userspace with this move? Also, on all those other

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:38:07PM +, Charles Garcia-Tobin wrote: > Later. Whatever you'd like to call it, but essentially a set of cpus, > as linux understands them, that are logically related by the fact that > you'd like to be able to use the same tuning policy and same governor > across all

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:24:19PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > That's why i am highlighting it again and again. :) Ah, see, someone caught up with it :). > What i believe is, the place where this directory was present earlier > (cpu/cpufreq/) wasn't the right place. Everything else was in > cpu

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:50:31PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > I think this is cleaner but whatever - I don't care that much. My > > only strong concern is that this thing should be a Kconfig option and > > optional for arches where it doesn't apply. > > Your concern is: we don't want to fix us

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 11:29:04AM +, Charles Garcia-Tobin wrote: > Actually shooting myself in the foot here, Krait is not such a great > example because although you can use difference between frequencies > you are less likely to use different tunables (not inconceivable > but unlikely). The

Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

2013-02-18 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 04:56:03PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Just some kind of indication from platform driver is required about > how/where it wants its governor directory to be present. The indication is this: config CPUFREQ_PLATFORM_DRIVER_X ... select CPUFREQ_MULTIPLE_POLIC