linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] Saving power by cpu evacuation using sched

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090428161536.GE7178@dirshya.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:45:36 +0530
From:	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arun Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] Saving power by cpu evacuation using
	sched_mc=n

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> [2009-04-28 10:52:37]:

> 
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> 
> > > > Also, the user interface should be that single thermal 
> > > > capacity knob, more fine grained control is undesired.
> > > 
> > > For power savings, a single evacuation knob will do.  While for 
> > > thermal we will need additional parameters to choose the right 
> > > cores to evacuate.  Some sort of directional/vector parameter.
> > 
> > Why? are machines that non-uniform in cooling capacity that it 
> > really matters which core generates the heat? Sounds like badly 
> > designed hardware to me.
> > 
> > I would expect it to only be the total head generated/power taken 
> > from the rack unit.
> 
> If we add thermal throttling at the kernel level then a single knob 
> (with a percentile-ish unit) is probably the furthest we will go - 
> with "not doing it at all" still being the other, very tempting 
> alternative.

Sure, this is all we would like to do.  Simpler interface is welcome
and will have easy adoption.
 
> If the only technical way you can find to do it is via myriads of 
> non-intuitive knobs and per core settings - then the answer is 
> really 'no thanks'.

Agreed.  We definitely do not want to add myriads of non-intuitive
knobs.  Lets see if a percentage/capacity type knob will work for all.

Thanks,
Vaidy

--
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/