Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758944AbYF3OVY (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:21:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752492AbYF3OVQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:21:16 -0400 Received: from brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM ([192.18.98.43]:61029 "EHLO brmea-mail-2.sun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752364AbYF3OVQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:21:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:18:35 -0400 From: David Collier-Brown Subject: Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n In-reply-to: <20080630043327.GA6276@dirshya.in.ibm.com> To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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 Reply-to: davecb@sun.com Message-id: <4868EB3B.1030608@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20041221 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1364 Lines: 30 Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > 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. I agree with Tim re setting them all independently, and suggest that they're all really per-process values: setting power saving system-wide is meaningful, but so are individual settings. There is therefor an argument for making them subsets of a higher-level nice program. Mind you, the order in which one *implements* the capability, and whether one does powernice first and adds it to nice later is your call! I have no idea of how hard what I suggested is (;-)) --dave -- David Collier-Brown | Always do right. This will gratify Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest davecb@sun.com | -- Mark Twain (905) 943-1983, cell: (647) 833-9377, (800) 555-9786 x56583 bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191# -- 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/