[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110420131442.GA29418@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:14:42 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, stable@...nel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 intel power: Initialize MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS
> > > However, the typical BIOS fails to initialize the MSR,
> > > and the typical Linux distro neglects to invoke x86_energy_perf_policy(8).
> > >
> > > The result is that some modern hardware is running in hardware default,
> > > which is "performance" mode, rather than the intended design default
> > > of "normal" mode.
> > >
> > > Initialize the MSR to the "normal" setting during kernel boot.
> > >
> > > Of course, x86_energy_perf_policy(8) is available to change
> > > the default after boot, should the user have a policy preference.
> > >
> > > cc: stable@...nel.org
...
> Will it be possible to measure a performance difference between
> "performance" and "normal"? Yes, it will be possible.
Ok. So... what "serious bug" does this fix? You really need to use cc:
stable less. Tweaking performance/power ratio is _not_ serious bug.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists