Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:48:26 -0500 (EST) | From | Len Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] tools: add power/x86/x86_energy_perf_policy to program MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS |
| |
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:13:24PM -0500, Len Brown wrote: > > Per the comments from Andrew and others, the concept of a > > "full tools build" doesn't actually exit (yet). > > > > So I guess the only assurance that somebody not on x86 would run > > make in this directory this utility lives in tools/power/x86/ > > > > Note that there are other utilities under tools > > which have no Makefile at all... > > I suspect this will need to be fixed at some point. > > e.g. kernel rpms probably don't want to hard code all of this > but just call some standard make file target. And the kernel > eventually needs a make install_user or similar.
I agree, but I don't volunteer to set up such a build system as part of this particular patch. As I mentioned, supplying any Makefile is a step better than some of the peers...
> > I'm not inclined to bother, as the use-case for this utility > > is to be invoked by another program, and the options available > > What other program? > > I could well imagine administrators sticking this > into their boot.locals to set the policy they want.
right, and that would be a program. It is unlikely that users are going to be typing this command, except into an admin script.
> > In the highly unlikely scenario that somebody uses > > the -r option to excerise the read-only code, > > and simultaneously invokes and completes a cpu hot remove > > FWIW there are setups where core offlining can happen > automatically in response to an error.
Understood. I think it is fine if this utility simply exits if that error occurs while it is running.
(turbostat, OTOH, may be long running, and it treats vanishing processors as a recoverable error)
thanks, -Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |