Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756726AbYF3E6X (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:58:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751509AbYF3E6P (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:58:15 -0400 Received: from E23SMTP03.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.172]:53199 "EHLO e23smtp03.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750878AbYF3E6O (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:58:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:27:37 +0530 From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan To: David Collier-Brown Cc: Tim Connors , Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , dipankar@in.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Linux Kernel , Suresh B Siddha , Venkatesh Pallipadi , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Vatsa , Gautham R Shenoy Subject: Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n Message-ID: <20080630043327.GA6276@dirshya.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mail-Followup-To: David Collier-Brown , Tim Connors , Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , dipankar@in.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Linux Kernel , Suresh B Siddha , Venkatesh Pallipadi , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Vatsa , Gautham R Shenoy References: <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> <1214516584.12265.10.camel@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <48641A7D.6080204@firstfloor.org> <12146282628495-twc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au> <4867CE52.8040204@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4867CE52.8040204@sun.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2365 Lines: 63 * David Collier-Brown [2008-06-29 14:02:58]: > Andi Kleen said on Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:38:53 +0200: >>> Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>>> 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... >>> >>> They already won't do that if you run ondemand and cpufreq. It won't >>> crank up the frequency for niced processes. > > > Tim Connors then wrote: >> Shouldn't there be a powernice, just as there is an ionice and a nice? > Hmmn, how about: > > User Commands nice(1) > > NAME > nice - invoke a command with an altered priority > > SYNOPSIS > /usr/bin/nice [-increment | -n increment] [-s|-i|-e|-p] command [argu- > ment...] > > DESCRIPTION > The nice utility invokes command, requesting that it be run > with a different priority. If -i is specified, the priority > of (disk) I/O is modified. If -e is specified, ethernet (or > other networking) priority is changed. If -p is specified, power > usage priority is changed and if -s is specified, or none of -1, > -e or -p is specified, then system scheduling priority > is modified... This is good. We are exploring powernice. 'Generally' cpu, io and power nice values should be similar: high or low. Can we comeup with use cases where we want to have conflicting nice values for cpu, io and power? CPU IO POWER distcc: low low low firefox: low high high ssh/shell: high high high X: high high low I am trying to find answer to the question: Should we have the power saving tunable as 'nice' value per process or system wide? How should we interpret the POWER parameter in a datacenter with power constraint as mentioned in this thread? Or in a simple case of AC vs battery in a laptop. Thanks, Vaidy -- 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/