* proposed sysfs semantic change.
@ 2010-08-11 21:54 Dave Jones
2010-08-12 9:46 ` Dominik Brodowski
2010-08-12 16:35 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dave Jones @ 2010-08-11 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cpufreq
Users with dual/quad core systems can currently set individual cores to
have different governors (and drivers!), which doesn't really make a lot
of sense.
I'm thinking of changing things so scaling_governor file for the 2nd/3rd/4th etc
cores is a symlink to the same file in cpu0/
So a write to one file will automatically set things on all related cores within
the same package.
For completeness we could also symlink related_cpus and driver.
thoughts ?
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: proposed sysfs semantic change.
2010-08-11 21:54 proposed sysfs semantic change Dave Jones
@ 2010-08-12 9:46 ` Dominik Brodowski
2010-08-12 16:35 ` Andi Kleen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dominik Brodowski @ 2010-08-12 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Jones; +Cc: cpufreq
Hey,
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 05:54:43PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> Users with dual/quad core systems can currently set individual cores to
> have different governors (and drivers!), which doesn't really make a lot
> of sense.
>
> I'm thinking of changing things so scaling_governor file for the 2nd/3rd/4th etc
> cores is a symlink to the same file in cpu0/
> So a write to one file will automatically set things on all related cores within
> the same package.
>
> For completeness we could also symlink related_cpus and driver.
>
> thoughts ?
good idea.
Best,
Doinik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: proposed sysfs semantic change.
2010-08-11 21:54 proposed sysfs semantic change Dave Jones
2010-08-12 9:46 ` Dominik Brodowski
@ 2010-08-12 16:35 ` Andi Kleen
2010-08-12 16:41 ` Dave Jones
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2010-08-12 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Jones; +Cc: cpufreq
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> writes:
> Users with dual/quad core systems can currently set individual cores to
> have different governors (and drivers!), which doesn't really make a lot
> of sense.
Why not? Imagine a system that is partitioned using cpusets or cgroups
for different sockets and the partitions runs different workloads.
I could well imagine using different governours (= policies)
for those different sockets.
Different drivers probably doesn't make much sense though.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: proposed sysfs semantic change.
2010-08-12 16:35 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2010-08-12 16:41 ` Dave Jones
2010-08-12 16:44 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dave Jones @ 2010-08-12 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: cpufreq
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:35:54PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Users with dual/quad core systems can currently set individual cores to
> > have different governors (and drivers!), which doesn't really make a lot
> > of sense.
>
> Why not? Imagine a system that is partitioned using cpusets or cgroups
> for different sockets and the partitions runs different workloads.
>
> I could well imagine using different governours (= policies)
> for those different sockets.
Different sockets is fine. I'm talking about different cores within the same socket.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: proposed sysfs semantic change.
2010-08-12 16:41 ` Dave Jones
@ 2010-08-12 16:44 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2010-08-12 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Jones; +Cc: Andi Kleen, cpufreq
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:41:54PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:35:54PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > > Users with dual/quad core systems can currently set individual cores to
> > > have different governors (and drivers!), which doesn't really make a lot
> > > of sense.
> >
> > Why not? Imagine a system that is partitioned using cpusets or cgroups
> > for different sockets and the partitions runs different workloads.
> >
> > I could well imagine using different governours (= policies)
> > for those different sockets.
>
> Different sockets is fine. I'm talking about different cores within the same socket.
If you have per core p-states that makes sense too.
Even without it could in principle make sense.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-08-12 16:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-08-11 21:54 proposed sysfs semantic change Dave Jones
2010-08-12 9:46 ` Dominik Brodowski
2010-08-12 16:35 ` Andi Kleen
2010-08-12 16:41 ` Dave Jones
2010-08-12 16:44 ` Andi Kleen
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.