Bill.Holler wrote: > On 11/05/08 17:11, Eric Saxe wrote: >> Randy Fishel wrote: >> >>> I would like to propose the following project to be sponsored by the >>> Power Management Community Group: >>> >>> Power Management Usability Interfaces >>> >>> Controlling and managing Power Management facilities currently is a >>> small collection of diverse tools that often manipulate objects >>> directly, or even require that a user edit a configuration file. >>> And many don't allow the user to identify or understand in-kernel >>> values without entering a debugger. As some tools need to duplicate >>> pathways, maintenance becomes a problem as all the tools need to be >>> identified and updated. >>> >>> Providing a well defined set of interfaces help to aleviate >>> confusion, and promote easy to use and easy to create tools. >>> Maintenence and security are also often confined to the element >>> that exhibits the problem. Some of this work may just result in >>> improved documentation, but there will also be a need for new and >>> updated tools and interfaces. >>> >>> I see this work falling into four distinct areas: >>> >>> A Power Management specific library (i.e. libpower) >>> Provides a committed set of programatic API's that >>> can be consumed by other tools, utilities, daemons, and GUI's >>> >>> Commands and Utilities >>> Predominantly updated and new CLI's, but could also be GUI's >>> that are expected to directly be us >>> >>> SMF facilities >>> New and improved services that can act standalone, or be >>> used as a repository for running state. >>> >>> Debug/Observability >>> Some of this might land in CLI, but could well include mdb >>> and dtrace enhancements (i.e. dtrace pm provider). >>> >>> >>> Initially I expect this work to focus in libpower, but there is the >>> likelyhood of effort in the other areas, as well as short-term >>> binary relief. This project will not necessarily limit itself to >>> the above areas, and could easily expand as the need presents >>> itself. >>> >>> >>> >>> Comments? Votes? >>> >>> >> Yes, +1. >> >> Thanks, >> -Eric >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pm-discuss mailing list >> pm-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-discuss >> > > +1. > > Bill >
+1. Currently Powertop is using an ugly method to enable cpupm. And we have the same problem to enable deep cstate. I believe this issue can be fixed if we have libpower. Thanks, -Aubrey
