[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120815162328.GB14534@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:23:28 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in
scheduler
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:05:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Yay, ideally we'd also provide a 3rd option: auto, which simply switches
> between the two based on AC/BAT, UPS status and simple things like that.
Please, really, don't do that. Pushing power policy decisions into
multiple bits of the stack makes things much more awkward, especially
when the criteria you're describing are about the least interesting
reasons for switching these states. They're most relevant on
multi-socket systems, and the overwhelming power concern there is
rack-level overcommit or cooling. You're going to need an external
policy agent to handle the majority of cases people actually care about.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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