Rafael Vanoni wrote:
> Li, Aubrey wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Maybe I should've phrased it better. If pt_turbo_snapshot() fails, t_new 
> is not freed.
>
>   
>>>     - 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.
>>     
>
> I was suggesting making it a local variable to pt_turbo_stat_collect(). 
> I don't see how that would clobber powertop.c.. am I missing something ?
>
>   
>>> 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(), :)
>>     
>
> That one was there before turbo ;) It's a nit, so feel free to ignore 
> it.. But, for instance, I'm suggesting changing
>
> update_turbo_info     -> turbo_mode_update_info
> turbo_kstat_update    -> turbo_mode_kstat_update
> record_turbo_info     -> turbo_mode_record_info ...
>
>   

The precedence I set with speedstep.c was that externally accessible 
functions were prefixed. I didn't really care if static routines were 
prefixed.


>>> 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.
>>     
>
> Ok.
>
>   
>>> 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"?
>>     
>
> I'm just wondering which name will be around longer, and suggesting that 
> we use that.
>
>   
>> Thanks for your comments, Rafael!
>>     
>
> My pleasure ;)
>
> Rafael
> _______________________________________________
> tesla-dev mailing list
> tesla-dev at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev
>   


Reply via email to