From: Dominik Brodowski <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 05:01:41PM +0200 > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 01:46:45PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > From: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@xxxxxxx> > > > > Add cpuid() helpers blatantly stolen from the kernel sources and > > use that for checking for aperf/mperf support instead of accessing > > "/dev/cpu/%d/cpuid" which requires the module to be enabled on the > > target system. > > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> > > CC: cpufreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > CC: linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Hm, the only thing I do not like about this patch is the following: > > brodo@comet$ sudo ./cpufreq-aperf > CPU Average freq(KHz) Time in C0 Time in Cx C0 percentage > 000 1220610 00 sec 282 ms 00 sec 717 ms 28 > 001 1160580 00 sec 316 ms 00 sec 683 ms 31 > > brodo@comet$ ./cpufreq-aperf > CPU Average freq(KHz) Time in C0 Time in Cx C0 percentage > [offline] > [offline] > > We should abort if we can't read the MSR, not loop with reporting "all cores > are offline". This shouldn't be happening actually, since you can't take cpu 0 offline, IOW, it should be still showing CPU0 online. > Also, should we still print the CPU no for offline CPUs? IMHO it would be more informative if we print the cpu number even if the cpu is offline. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. -- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating Systems Research Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
