lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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
>
>





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-06 17:03    [W:0.072 / U:0.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site