On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:40:38 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, March 29, 2013 07:56:39 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Earlier definitions of affected and related cpus were:
> > Related_cpus: CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency.
> > Affected_cpus: CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by
> > software.
> >
> > These definitions were very confusing as they don't communicate the real
> > difference between them.
> >
> > Following are the new definitions of these variables:
> > Related_cpus: All (Online & Offline) CPUs that run at the same hardware
> > frequency. Affected_cpus: Online CPUs that run at the same hardware
> > frequency.
> >
> > Above definitions are more consistent with latest cpufreq core code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thomas Renninger is maintaining cpupower nowadays (added to CC). I won't
> get any cpupower changes without his ACK.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
> > ---
> >
> > tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-info.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-info.c
> > b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-info.c index 28953c9..a81d4ec 100644
> > --- a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-info.c
> > +++ b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-info.c
> > @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static void debug_output_one(unsigned int cpu)
> >
> > cpus = cpufreq_get_related_cpus(cpu);
> > if (cpus) {
> >
> > - printf(_(" CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: "));
> > + printf(_(" All (Online & Offline) CPUs that run at the same hardware frequency: "));
This one is not worth changing IMO, in the end it tells the user more or less the same and
as this stuff is translated, I'd not change it.
> > while (cpus->next) {
> >
> > printf("%d ", cpus->cpu);
> > cpus = cpus->next;
> >
> > @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void debug_output_one(unsigned int cpu)
> >
> > cpus = cpufreq_get_affected_cpus(cpu);
> > if (cpus) {
> >
> > - printf(_(" CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: "));
> > + printf(_(" Online CPUs that run at the same hardware frequency: "));
> > while (cpus->next) {
I agree that this message is more developer than user oriented,
but cpupower is more for the end-user. So this message is not perfect.
Checking the manpage which should also get adjusted, I found another bug:
-a --related-cpus
Determines which CPUs run at the same hardware frequency.
-a --affected-cpus
Determines which CPUs need to have their frequency coordinated
by software.
It must be:
-r --related-cpus
>From what I can see of current code with patch aa77a52764a92216b61a6c8079b5c01937c046cd
all related_cpus users are gone and related-cpus does not have any meaning at all
anymore?
I haven't gone through your latest changes, but will at least give them a test on
a AMD K10 multi socket machine which iirc where using related_cpus.
I try to catch up with latest cpufreq changes as well, but wow... no idea when this
will happen.
For now I would just leave it (cpupower messages/manpage) as it is, there is
nothing critical which must get fixed immediately.
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
