[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6960637.XgeniQrqfM@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:32:46 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Juri.Lelli@....com, steve.muckle@...aro.org,
morten.rasmussen@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
Michael Turquette <mturquette+renesas@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] sched: prefer cpufreq_scale_freq_capacity
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 09:07:52 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:44:33PM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > intel_pstate (setpolicy()) is an exception but my humble guess is that
> > systems with intel_pstate driver have X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF support.
>
> A quick browse of the Intel SDM says you're right. It looks like
> everything after Pentium-M; so Core-Solo/Core-Duo and onwards have
> APERF/MPERF.
>
> And it looks like P6 class systems didn't have DVFS support at all,
> which basically leaves P4 and Pentium-M as the only chips to have DVFS
> support lacking APERF/MPERF.
>
> And while I haven't got any P4 based space heaters left, I might still
> have a Pentium-M class laptop somewhere (if it still boots).
intel_pstate depends on APERF/MPERF, so it won't work with anything
without them.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists