Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753627AbYFZVnU (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:43:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751166AbYFZVnL (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:43:11 -0400 Received: from viefep18-int.chello.at ([213.46.255.22]:10123 "EHLO viefep14-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751273AbYFZVnK (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:43:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n From: Peter Zijlstra To: Andi Kleen Cc: dipankar@in.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Linux Kernel , Suresh B Siddha , Venkatesh Pallipadi , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Vatsa , Gautham R Shenoy In-Reply-To: <48640C04.9020600@firstfloor.org> References: <20080625191100.GI21892@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <87k5gcqpbm.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4863AF57.3040005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4863DB29.1020304@firstfloor.org> <20080626185254.GA12416@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <4863F93C.9040102@firstfloor.org> <20080626210025.GB26167@in.ibm.com> <48640C04.9020600@firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:43:04 +0200 Message-Id: <1214516584.12265.10.camel@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 (2.22.2-2.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1274 Lines: 28 On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 23:37 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > > Some workload managers already do that - they provision cpu and memory > > resources based on request rates and response times. Such software is > > in a better position to make a decision whether they can live with > > reduced performance due to power saving mode or not. The point I am > > making is the the kernel doesn't have any notion of transactional > > performance > > The kernel definitely knows about burstiness vs non burstiness at least > (although it currently has no long term memory for that). Does it need > more than that for this? Anyways if nice levels were used that is not > even needed, because it's ok to run niced processes slower. > > And your workload manager could just nice processes. It should probably > do that anyways to tell ondemand you don't need full frequency. Except that I want my nice 19 distcc processes to utilize as much cpu as possible, but just not bother any other stuff I might be doing... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/