Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
On 03/12/12 22:45, Ian Lepore wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 21:15 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/control. I've found that at least two of my desktop systems (based Nehalem and Sa

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
On 03/12/12 22:22, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:11:28 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander Motinп

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the I

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/control. I've found that at least two of my desktop systems (based Nehalem and

Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
Hi. I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/control. I've found that at least two of my desktop systems (based Nehalem and SandyBridge Core i7s) with enabled Intel Turbo Boost in BIOS it is not use it by default,

Re: OpenCL backend for LLVM

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:31:46 +0100 "O. Hartmann" wrote: > So far, FreeBSD does have the support of a native driver by nVidia. > But there are no compatible FreeBSD VUDA libraries, there is no > working "compiler" (nvcc does only run on Linux and expects still in > conjunction with the CUDA SDK 4.

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:38:16 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: > On 03/12/12 22:22, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > > В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:11:28 +0200 > > Alexander Motin пишет: > > > >> On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > >>> В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 > >>> Alexander Motin пишет: > >>> >

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:11:28 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: > On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > > В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 > > Alexander Motin пишет: > > > >> On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > >>> В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 > >>> Alexander Motin пишет: > I'd l

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:11:28 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: > On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > > В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 > > Alexander Motin пишет: > > > >> On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > >>> В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 > >>> Alexander Motin пишет: > I'd l

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: > On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > > В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 > > Alexander Motin пишет: > >> I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD > >> opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/co

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander Motin пишет: > Hi. > > I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD > opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/control. I've > found that at least two of my desktop systems (based Nehalem and > SandyBridge Core i7s) wi

Re: OpenCL backend for LLVM

2012-03-12 Thread Adrian Chadd
A lot of the linux work is pushed not by hobbyists, but by large companies with customers that request support. Don't mislead yourself by thinking all this Linux work gets done by a large number of unpaid volunteers. Go look at the contribution statistics sometime. If people would like to see CUD

Re: OpenCL backend for LLVM

2012-03-12 Thread O. Hartmann
On 03/12/12 14:34, Eduardo Morras wrote: > At 19:16 09/03/2012, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 9 March 2012 09:31, O. Hartmann >> wrote: >> > Well, having to pick up existing ideas and incarntions of those for >> > Linux is always a pain in the ass, but necessary at the moment. The >> > "experts" negle

Re: OpenCL backend for LLVM

2012-03-12 Thread Eduardo Morras
At 19:16 09/03/2012, Adrian Chadd wrote: On 9 March 2012 09:31, O. Hartmann wrote: > Well, having to pick up existing ideas and incarntions of those for > Linux is always a pain in the ass, but necessary at the moment. The > "experts" neglected long time the need for keeping FBSD on par with KMS