On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 02:04:04 PM Thomas Renninger wrote:
> 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.
OK
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology 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
