+1

    - Garrett

Randy Fishel wrote:
> I am sponsoring the following self-review for Rafael Vanoni.  It adds
> an option to PowerTOP allowing behavior to be focused on a specific
> cpu.  As other options, the stability is "Uncommitted", and a release
> binding of "Patch/Micro".
>
>
> Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase %I% %G% SMI
> This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
> 1. Introduction
>     1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
>        PowerTOP --cpu option
>     1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
>        Author:  Rafael Vanoni
>     1.3  Date of This Document:
>       10 February, 2009
> 4. Technical Description
>        Currently, PowerTOP observes power management related events on a 
> system wide basis. With the growing number of cores and processors in 
> today's system, it is sometimes desirable to observe the system in a 
> finer grained manner. This project introduces a new command line option 
> that allows the user to specify which core/processor he wishes to observe 
> with PowerTOP.
>
>        The new option will focus all of PowerTOP's subwindows into the 
> specified processor. Therefore, presenting the processor's behavior in 
> terms of idle state and frequency level transitions, as well as reporting 
> only events that affect power management on that CPU. This new option 
> can be specified through the --cpu or -c option, and must be followed 
> by a CPU id. It can be used while specifying a time interval (-t), with 
> dump mode (-d), but not with verbose mode (-v). 
>
>
> Proposed man page addition:
>
> OPTIONS
>
>       -c [processor id]
>
>          Specifies which CPU the tool should observe.
>
> EXAMPLES
>
>       Example 4 Analyzing activity on a specific processor
>
>       This command will run PowerTOP and only display data for CPU 3.
>
>          % powertop -c 3
>
>
> 6. Resources and Schedule
>     6.4. Steering Committee requested information
>       6.4.1. Consolidation C-team Name:
>               ON
>     6.5. ARC review type: Automatic
>     6.6. ARC Exposure: open
>
>   


Reply via email to