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

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 06:42:51AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 8/15/2014 6:08 AM, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> >(b) we come up with ways to provide the bounds around a Desired value
> >using the information from the platform. (long term)
> >
> >I briefly looked at the x86 HWP (Hardware Performance States) in the
> >s/w manual again. Its essentially an implementation of CPPC. It seems
> >like X86 has implemented most if not all these registers as MSRs. I'm
> >really interested in knowing if anyone there is/has been working on
> >using them and what they found.
> 
> we've found that so far that there are two reasonable options
> 1) Let the OS device (old style)
> 2) Let the hardware decide (new style)
> 
> 2) is there in practice today in the turbo range (which is increasingly the whole thing)
> and the hardware can make decisions about power budgetting on a timescale the OS
> can never even dream of, so once you give control the the hardware (with CPPC or native)
> it's normally better to just get out of the way as OS.

OK, so we should just forget about 'power aware scheduling' for Intel?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]