[Bug 832179] Power management guide is wrong for frequency scaling in Fedora 17

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832179

Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad at redhat.c |
                   |om)                         |

--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad at redhat.com> ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks Jaroslav, but I'm unsure of what to edit. If I'm removing "If a
> specific governor is not listed as available for your CPU" because those
> governors are built in, then the whole step is redundant because it says to
> use modprobe to enable a governor that is listed as unavailable for your
> CPU. If all governors are listed as available, then I assume the modprobe
> command is unnecessary, in which case the second step, which enables the
> governor, is all that's needed. Should I delete the first step?
> 
Yes, please delete the first step (about modprobe).

> Note that because I am updating this section to incorporate the cpupower
> command as we discussed, then this second step to enable the governor will
> use "cpupower frequency-info --governors"
> 
Great, I hardly follow all the changes :). But your substitution command is not
correct.
"cpupower frequency-info --governors" will show all available governors, but
enable the specific governor by:
"cpupower frequency-set --governor GOVERNOR" or simply by "cpupower
frequency-set -g GOVERNOR". This will change governer on all cores (CPUs). You
can also modify governor on specific core only (if supported by HW) by using
the -c switch. 

> The command "cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor" that
> you've asked to be retained has also been replaced, by "cpupower
> frequency-info --policy". 
> 
OK, no problem, just be consistent.

> I just want to be sure that this is acceptable and you don't actually want
> the existing cat and echo commands to be retained despite the emphasis on
> cpupower.
> 
The admon box from RHEL guide that very briefly noted that there are also the
sysfs "echo/cat" alternatives is enough.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.