On 2020-09-27, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> The diff below teaches apmd(8) -H to set hw.perfpolicy="manual" and
> hw.setperf=100, instead of setting hw.perfpolicy="high".
sure. if you would like to own this, by all means. :)
On Thu, Sep 24 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23 2020, "Ted Unangst" wrote:
>> On 2020-09-23, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>>
>>> ok?
>>
>> Seems fine.
>>
>>
>>> Note: I inlined the apmd(8)->apm(8) perfpolicy conversion for now, which
>>> brings a question. I find it
On Wed, Sep 23 2020, "Ted Unangst" wrote:
> On 2020-09-23, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
>> ok?
>
> Seems fine.
>
>
>> Note: I inlined the apmd(8)->apm(8) perfpolicy conversion for now, which
>> brings a question. I find it weird that there is a special "high"
>> perfpolicy (effectively
On 2020-09-23, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> ok?
Seems fine.
> Note: I inlined the apmd(8)->apm(8) perfpolicy conversion for now, which
> brings a question. I find it weird that there is a special "high"
> perfpolicy (effectively similar to perfpolicy=manual + setperf=100) but
> no "low"
On Wed, Sep 23 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> Prompted by a report from Miod: setting hw.setperf works only if the
> kernel doesn't have a usable cpu_setperf implementation. The current
> apmd(8) code warns if setting hw.perfpolicy fails, but then handles
> back bogus values to apm(8)
Prompted by a report from Miod: setting hw.setperf works only if the
kernel doesn't have a usable cpu_setperf implementation. The current
apmd(8) code warns if setting hw.perfpolicy fails, but then handles
back bogus values to apm(8) clients.
The easy fix is to just query the kernel about the
