Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756005AbYF3HRk (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:17:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752333AbYF3HRb (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:17:31 -0400 Received: from gpo5.cc.swin.edu.au ([136.186.1.225]:49178 "EHLO swin.edu.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752035AbYF3HR3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:17:29 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 2146 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:17:29 EDT Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:55:40 +1000 (EST) From: Tim Connors X-X-Sender: tconnors@pentane.ssi.swin.edu.au To: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan cc: David Collier-Brown , 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 In-Reply-To: <20080630043327.GA6276@dirshya.in.ibm.com> Message-ID: 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> <20080630043327.GA6276@dirshya.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3836 Lines: 89 On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > * 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, -i ^^^ > > -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 What's "high" mean? High priority, or high niceness? Looks like you're referring to priority there. Although, if those are real examples, then it demonstrates why different people would set different priororities (I's say firefox would be both high CPU and power nice). distcc wants to be high CPU "nice" (low CPU priority - let other desktop etc things get done first). But low niceness for power and probably io (get it over and done with sooner, and IO traffic is burst, so won't interfere so much with other IO). > 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. On laptop battery, background tasks like firefox redrawing crappy animations -- high power nice, high cpu nice (ie, if it was the only thing running, and it still wanted to chew 100% cpu, it'll only be chewing 850MHz of 100% cpu on my Core2 Duo). My shell though, will be running at the default io=cpu=power nice of 0. Datacentre running with little loading because it's approaching midnight localtime, so lets run the general background tasks at high power nice, medium cpu nice, medium IO nice. During peak times, the main transaction tasks running at low power nice, low cpu and low io nice, will be busy, and so the cpus all go up a notch or three. It's not just a matter of installing powersaved and saying "performance" vs "ondemand", at various times of the day, because it's better to adjust dynamically based on real load. -- Tim Connors -- 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/