https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23551
--- Comment #37 from Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> 2013-02-26 15:56:40 --- (In reply to comment #36) > (In reply to comment #34) > > (...) The code is already a bit kludgy, as the core power is reported with > > CPU 0. If someone takes CPU 0 offline, the core power/attributes would > > disappear. > > This is no good. It took quite some time to get the coretemp driver to > properly > support CPU removal, I would be sad to see it go wrong again. > Agreed. > > So all power/energy should really be reported through the package > > instance, but if I do that I would have more than one power attribute > > associated with it, which would make things a bit difficult. > > > > Question is if I should rearrange the code and report all power domains. > > Thoughts on that ? > > I honestly don't see how hard this can be. Having multiple power attributes > should be no harder than having multiple voltage or temperature attributes, > many drivers do that and libsensors supports it for years. > > You are adding a new feature to the driver, let's do it right. > Ok. Already done, actually. > > No, because power is instantaneous and energy is cumulative. Both values are > > important: With one the user can see how much energy the chip consumed since > > the driver was loaded, and with the other how much power it consumes now. > > I don't get it. If the energy counters are wrapping then they tell how much > energy was consumed since a random point in time, and this random point is > different for each counter. I see no value in this information. > Not really true. Wrapping is only a problem if the driver is not loaded when the system boots. Hopefully loading it during boot is the normal way of operation. Even when loaded later I personally find the information quite useful. > > We have a couple of options: I can start the count from the time the driver > > is > > loaded (which would miss some energy, but be a one-liner), I could add a > > wraparound value to the pkg energy if the core energy reading is higher (a > > bit > > complicated), or I could leave it is as. > > I'm a bit lost, this would probably be better discussed through a patch review > than in bugzilla. Please post an updated version of your patch and I'll review > it. Ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ acpi-bugzilla mailing list acpi-bugzilla@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-bugzilla
