[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1214516584.12265.10.camel@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:43:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: dipankar@...ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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>,
Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 23:37 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> > Some workload managers already do that - they provision cpu and memory
> > resources based on request rates and response times. Such software is
> > in a better position to make a decision whether they can live with
> > reduced performance due to power saving mode or not. The point I am
> > making is the the kernel doesn't have any notion of transactional
> > performance
>
> The kernel definitely knows about burstiness vs non burstiness at least
> (although it currently has no long term memory for that). Does it need
> more than that for this? Anyways if nice levels were used that is not
> even needed, because it's ok to run niced processes slower.
>
> And your workload manager could just nice processes. It should probably
> do that anyways to tell ondemand you don't need full frequency.
Except that I want my nice 19 distcc processes to utilize as much cpu as
possible, but just not bother any other stuff I might be doing...
--
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