[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4863DB29.1020304@firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:08:41 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
> A user could be an application and certain applications can predict their
> workload.
So you expect the applications to run suid root and change a sysctl?
And what happens when two applications run that do that and they have differing
requirements? Will they fight over the sysctl?
> For example, a database, a file indexer, etc can predict their workload.
A file indexer should run with a high nice level and low priority would ideally always
prefer power saving. But it doesn't currently. Perhaps it should?
>
> Policies are best known in user land and the best controlled from there.
> Consider a case where the end user might select a performance based policy or a
> policy to aggressively save power (during peak tariff times). With
How many users are going to do that? Seems like a unrealistic case to me.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists