Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:53:22 -0400 | From | "Tippett, Matthew" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][ACPI] AC/DC notifier |
| |
(Resending as text-only - sorry)
Bringing this item back up again.
I am not suggesting that the application of any particular policy appears within the kernel or userspace or a secondary policy engine. In general I am also against codifying policy within drivers.
I am interested seeing the ACPI notifier mechanism expanded to allow AC/DC state changes propagate to other kernel drivers without requiring a userspace in between.
I can continue to come up with real scenarios that would possibly require kernel-to-kernel notification, but would rather focus this discussion of the pure technical issues associated with adding the notifier to the AC/DC ACPI subsystem.
Remember it is a one line patch.
Regards,
Matthew
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [PATCH][ACPI] AC/DC notifier From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> Cc: "Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>, "Tippett, Matthew" <Matthew.Tippett@amd.com>, "Langsdorf, Mark" <mark.langsdorf@amd.com>, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Li, Samuel" <Samuel.Li@amd.com> Date: 08/16/2009 03:40 AM > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 06:32:33PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Wed 2009-08-12 01:55:32, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 08:51:49PM -0400, Tippett, Matthew wrote: > > > > > > > From a graphics perspective (your area of expertise), this > will allow KMS > > > > drivers to do some more intelligent actions based on the > ac/dc state. > > > > Some examples of this could be improving the power > consumption of the > > > > graphics hardware through adapting clock memory/engine > settings for > > > > reduced power consumption, reducing refresh rate of the > display to reduce > > > > scanout memory access, adjusting backlight brightness, etc. > > > > > > Right. As you say, my concern is that most of this should belong in > > > userspace. Where we risk hardware damage there's an obvious > argument for > > > doing this in kernel, but we should ensure that that's limited to > > > whatever coarse-grain handling is absolutely required rather than > doing > > > things like touching display brightness. > > > > Yep... Some may want to save power even when AC is online -- like when > > running on UPS. Some may want max performmance even on battery. > > Wholeheartly agreed. IMHO, there's absolutely no relation between power > source and the expected performance. It's really frustrating when your > laptop becomes a snail on battery, as well as it's annoying to hear it > sound like a hairdryer when plugged to mains. This should only be the > user's choice. Mine automatically adjusts its frequency on demand, > regardless of the power source, which provides me with the best > experience. I think that all the tricks used to save power when running > on battery were invented by laptop makers to artificially show longer > lasting eventhough the machine sometimes becomes barely usable. For > instance, some of them dim the backlight so that you can't read anything > in full light, so you need a power prolongator to use them outside ! > > Also, with the new trend of laptops making use of huge power-hungry 3D > graphic chips which suck all the juice out of your battery in less than > two hours doing nothing, you'd better run at full speed when on battery > to save energy for CPU-bound tasks, because eventhough the CPU eats more > power, you significantly reduce the run time, thus the static consumption > (GPU, backlight, hard disk, ...). > > Willy > >
| |