lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [discussion]sched: a rough proposal to enable power saving in scheduler

* Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:42:04AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> > > [...] Putting this kind of policy in the kernel is an awful
> > > idea. [...]
> >
> > A modern kernel better know what state the system is in: on
> > battery or on AC power.
>
> That's a fundamentally uninteresting thing for the kernel to
> know about. [...]

I disagree.

> [...] AC/battery is just not an important power management
> policy input when compared to various other things.

Such as?

The thing is, when I use Linux on a laptop then AC/battery is
*the* main policy input.

> > > [...] It should never be altering policy itself, [...]
> >
> > The kernel/scheduler simply offers sensible defaults where
> > it can. User-space can augment/modify/override that in any
> > which way it wishes to.
> >
> > This stuff has not been properly sorted out in the last 10+
> > years since we have battery driven devices, so we might as
> > well start with the kernel offering sane default behavior
> > where it can ...
>
> Userspace has been doing a perfectly reasonable job of
> determining policy here.

Has it properly switched the scheduler's balancing between
power-effient and performance-maximizing strategies when for
example a laptop's AC got unplugged/replugged?

> > > [...] because it'll get it wrong and people will file bugs
> > > complaining that it got it wrong and the biggest case
> > > where you *need* to be able to handle switching between
> > > performance and power optimisations (your rack management
> > > unit just told you that you're going to have to drop power
> > > consumption by 20W) is one where the kernel doesn't have
> > > all the information it needs to do this. So why bother at
> > > all?
> >
> > The point is to have a working default mechanism.
>
> Your suggestions aren't a working default mechanism.

In what way?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-21 18:21    [W:0.124 / U:0.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site