Mark.Haywood wrote: > Li, Aubrey wrote: >> Firstly, many thanks to report this bug, :-) >> >> Before we setup powertop bug track system on defect.opensolaris.org, >> can we report bug to the mailing list first? >> >> my comments about this bug: >> >> This is a very good raise-up, really. But I think it'd better to >> place this bug into Todo list. Currently kernel doesn't support any >> mechanism to obtain the frequency in the "turbo mode". So, powertop >> can't report any related info. Actually hardware feedback machanism >> exists on the processor, We need to enable it. >> > > It is true that the APERF/MPERF hardware feedback mechanism > can help to > identify that a processor has been in "turbo mode". But unless I'm > mistaken there is no guarantee that when the processor is in > Turbo Mode > that APERF/MPERF will catch it. Among other things, it would > depend upon > your polling interval - which currently is pretty long.
Can't we assume the processor is in turbo mode when we are in P0 = (market frequency) + 1Mhz? > > What exactly would powertop report about 'turbo mode'? Amount of time > spent in "turbo mode"? I think a metric like that is bound to be > incorrect given the current hardware support isn't it? If I understand correctly, the bug reporter want to know the average frequency in turbo mode(P0) in a sampling period, if hardware support it. Thanks, -Aubrey
