\> > 
quoted text
> > that's a case where it really makes sense; it's the case where the
> > thing that controls the cpu P-state actually learns about how much
> > work was done to reevaluate what the cpu frequency should be going
> > forward. Eg it's a case of comparing actual frequency (APERF/MPERF)
> > to see what's useful to set next.
> > IDA makes this all needed due to the dynamic nature of the concept
> > of "frequency".
> 
> Scaled statistics relative to maximum CPU capacity is just a method of
> exposing the actual CPU utilisation of applications independent of CPU
> frequency changes.
> 
> Reason behind the metric is same as the above fact that you have
> mentioned.  The CPU frequency governors cannot make decisions only
> based on idle time ratio.  It needs to know current utilisation (used
> cycles) relative to maximum capacity so that the frequency can be
> changed to next higher level.
> 
> Higher level management software that wants to control CPU capacity
> externally will need similar information.
>
I entirely understand that desire.
But you're not giving it that information!
The patch is giving it a really poor approximation, an approximation
that will get worse and worse in upcoming cpu generations.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/