Rafael.Vanoni wrote:

> Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> The prototype of turbo observability support is almost done. webrev
>> is here: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~aubrey/turbo-support/
>> 
>> It includes both kernel part and application part.
>> The screenshot is here:
>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/tesla/Work/Powertop/turbo.JPG
>> 
>> Welcome any comments and suggestions!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Aubrey
> 
> Hi Aubrey, here are my comments.
> 
> usr/src/cmd/powertop/turbo.c
>       - pt_turbo_stat_collect(void): looks like you'll leak
> memory if turbo
> is not supported (i.e. calloc after checking if it's supported)

Take a look at powertop.c.
pt_turbo_stat_collect will only be called when turbo is supported.

>       - since this routines is called at every interval,
> wouldn't it make
> sense to use have a turbo_info_t t_new, as opposed to
> allocating/freeing it all the time?

That's a good suggestion, but the current implementation makes the powertop.c
cleaner, since we don't clobber it too much. Otherwise you have to add a 
variable
to it.

> 
> usr/src/cmd/powertop/powertop.c
>       - I'd suggest clearing g_turbo_supported around lines 80-83, before
> we start initializing everything else.

okay, will do that.

> 
> usr/src/uts/i86pc/os/cpupm/speedstep.c
>       - the new routines are not prefixed with speedstep_. So
> I'd suggest
> either adding that or creating a standard prefix for turbo
> mode related
> routines.

I can do the change but why do we need to do that? if you mean the helper
functions like the write_ctrl(), :)

> 
> One question about the list of p-states in PowerTOP. From the
> screenshot you posted, it seems like ptop is listing every turbo mode
> frequency along the way. Shouldn't we only display the highest (or
> last highest freq) for turbo mode? I'm worried that the list will get
> too big and never shrink. 

hehehe, that's not true. The highest freq is tagged by the label(turbo).
my Nehalem machine has 12 P-states.

> 
> On a wider note, is "turbo mode" the official name for this feature or
> is it Intel Dynamic Acceleration (IDA)? I agree that "turbo"
> is simpler
> and easier to use, but I wonder which one would be more appropriate.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael

"turbo" is well known to us, are you suggesting to rename it to "ida"?

Thanks for your comments, Rafael!
-Aubrey

Reply via email to