Hi,
this is about the recently announced cpupowerutils project
based on or say an enhancement of the well know
cpufrequtils project:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg02137.html
It's basically cpufrequtils with some cpuidle info additions
and the Intel only turbostat tool merged into it in a way
that it can easily get extended for other HW (and got extended
with some AMD facilities).
As there is tools/power/x86 for some time, it would be very
convenient to get cpupowerutils merged into linux-next (for now)
into the tools/power/cpupower directory:
Most of it is directly based on the cpufreq/cpuidle kernel
subsystem and the output gathered by it should be attached
to any CPU frequency/idle related kernel bug.
Dominik was so kind to add the stuff to his pcmcia git tree
as cpupowerutils branch.
Therefore, this can easily be added by pulling from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/pcmcia-2.6.git cpupowerutils
Even the MAINTAINERS file got adjusted already (thanks!):
CPU POWER MONITORING SUBSYSTEM
M: Dominik Brodowski <[email protected]>
M: Thomas Renninger <[email protected]>
S: Maintained
F: tools/power/cpupower
Stephen: I added lkml, linux-pm lists and kernel people I know
working in this area. Please tell me if you can/will just
pull this or whatever you need to make it happen.
Thanks,
Thomas
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:10:56 +0200 Thomas Renninger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> this is about the recently announced cpupowerutils project
> based on or say an enhancement of the well know
> cpufrequtils project:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg02137.html
Has integration of this into the kernel sources been discussed anywhere
generally (like lkml)? Has the work been done to integrate it into the
kernel build system (I am not sure what this involves for the tools
directory). At a first glance, it doesn't need it own copy of the
COPYING file (for example).
I see that you asked Linus about this, but have receibed no reply (on
list).
Code being merged into linux-next should be basically ready for merging
into Linus' tree (apart from integration testing) and you need to be
pretty sure that it will be merged by Linus into the next release (i.e.
2.6.40). In this case that is not such a big issue as the code is
(currently) all in a new directory, so will not interfere with other code.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Monday 04 April 2011 16:40:11 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:10:56 +0200 Thomas Renninger <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > this is about the recently announced cpupowerutils project
> > based on or say an enhancement of the well know
> > cpufrequtils project:
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg02137.html
>
> Has integration of this into the kernel sources been discussed
> anywhere generally (like lkml)?
This is the first submit request.
> Has the work been done to integrate it into the
> kernel build system (I am not sure what this involves for the tools
> directory).
No, it's separated like perf (but it is by far not that complex and
has not that much dependencies) or like tools/power/x86.
> At a first glance, it doesn't need it own copy of the
> COPYING file (for example).
While cpufrequtils has been developed by people working with
the kernel, there are probably more things like this to clean up
and get adopted.
It would be great to have it in linux-next for a while to get such
stuff addressed and cleaned up.
> I see that you asked Linus about this, but have receibed no reply (on
> list).
It was not very clever to simply add Linus into CC of this announcement,
asking for integration in the middle of a merge window...
> Code being merged into linux-next should be basically ready for
> merging into Linus' tree (apart from integration testing) and you need
> to be pretty sure that it will be merged by Linus into the next
> release (i.e. 2.6.40). In this case that is not such a big issue as
> the code is (currently) all in a new directory, so will not interfere
> with other code.
Yes, it's totally separated and will not interfere.
80% of the code (cpufrequtils) is mature and well tested for years.
Recent changes are the cpuidle (cpupower idle-info) and monitor
parts. The integration to have one binary (command subcommand
style like perf/git/guilt/...), invoke manpages via --help, etc.
So yes, the code is ready for getting merged into Linus' tree, still
there hopefully will show up some bugfixes and enhancements
while it lives in linux-next.
Thomas
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:10:56 +0200 Thomas Renninger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> this is about the recently announced cpupowerutils project
> based on or say an enhancement of the well know
> cpufrequtils project:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg02137.html
>
> It's basically cpufrequtils with some cpuidle info additions
> and the Intel only turbostat tool merged into it in a way
> that it can easily get extended for other HW (and got extended
> with some AMD facilities).
>
> As there is tools/power/x86 for some time, it would be very
> convenient to get cpupowerutils merged into linux-next (for now)
> into the tools/power/cpupower directory:
> Most of it is directly based on the cpufreq/cpuidle kernel
> subsystem and the output gathered by it should be attached
> to any CPU frequency/idle related kernel bug.
>
> Dominik was so kind to add the stuff to his pcmcia git tree
> as cpupowerutils branch.
> Therefore, this can easily be added by pulling from:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/pcmcia-2.6.git cpupowerutils
OK, I have added this tree starting tomorrow.
> Stephen: I added lkml, linux-pm lists and kernel people I know
> working in this area. Please tell me if you can/will just
> pull this or whatever you need to make it happen.
This maens that I will fetch from that tree every day and merge it into
linux-next.
Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next. As
you may know, this is not a judgment of your code. The purpose of
linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of
conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window.
You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
been:
* submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
Signed-off-by,
* posted to the relevant mailing list,
* reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
* successfully unit tested, and
* destined for the current or next Linux merge window.
Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[email protected]
Legal Stuff:
By participating in linux-next, your subsystem tree contributions are
public and will be included in the linux-next trees. You may be sent
e-mail messages indicating errors or other issues when the
patches/commits from your subsystem tree are merged and tested in
linux-next. These messages may also be cross-posted to the linux-next
mailing list, the linux-kernel mailing list, etc. The linux-next tree
project and IBM (my employer) make no warranties regarding the linux-next
project, the testing procedures, the results, the e-mails, etc. If you
don't agree to these ground rules, let me know and I'll remove your tree
from participation in linux-next.
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:57:30 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/pcmcia-2.6.git cpupowerutils
>
> OK, I have added this tree starting tomorrow.
I just have you listed as the contact for any problems with this tree.
Is that sufficient? If there are others (or a mailing list) that should
be notified as well, please let me know.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/