On Monday, September 17, 2012 09:41:20 AM Andre Przywara wrote:
> On 09/15/2012 01:20 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >
...
> This was to overcome some nasty interaction between the Windows
> scheduler and their version of the ondemand governor.
Whoever is/was responsible for this, can you explain him/her that
this was a bad idea and why.
Is this part of a BKDG?
Can you point to a public spec and the exact wording of the
"Windows scheduler workaround" BIOS vendors shall do?
> + pr_info_once(PFX "overriding BIOS provided _PSD data\n");
The message shows up on nearly every platform wether a _PSD
function exists or not. This is wrong.
If it's _PSD info that should get ignored/overwritten, this should
be done where _PSD is obtained:
processor_perflib.c
Are you sure that it will never make sense for AMD to make use of
_PSD tables?
If yes, then always ignoring might be an option.
If not, this might need a more specific check, e.g.:
- Latest Windows version support called via OSI interface?
Latest Windowses should/may not need this anymore?
- Check for Desktop CPUs that are affected by the bad spec?
Hm, as powernow-k8 never made use of _PSD, ignoring it for
now sounds like a good thing to do. Still the ignoring should get
moved to processor_perflib.c, best with a pointer or at least
a comment that _PSD can be dangerous on AMD platforms. At some
day _PSD may make sense for AMD platforms as well?
Thomas
--
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
