On 02/20/2013 03:40 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 13:55 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> Joonsoo Kim suggests not packing exec task, since the old task utils is >> possibly unuseable. > > (I'm stumbling around in rtmutex PI land, all dazed and confused, so > forgive me if my peripheral following of this thread is off target;) > > Hm, possibly. Future behavior is always undefined, trying to predict > always a gamble... so it looks to me like not packing on exec places a > bet against the user, who chose to wager that powersaving will happen > and it won't cost him too much, if you don't always try to pack despite > any risks. The user placed a bet on powersaving, not burst performance. > > Same for the fork, if you spread to accommodate a potential burst, you > bin the power wager, so maybe it's not in his best interest.. fork/exec > is common, if it's happening frequently, you'll bin the potential power > win frequently, reducing effectiveness, and silently trading power for > performance when the user asked to trade performance for a lower > electric bill. > > Dunno, just a thought, but I'd say for powersaving policy, you have to > go just for broke and hope it works out. You can't know it won't, but > you'll toss potential winnings every time you don't roll the dice.
Sounds reasonable too. I have no idea of the of the decision now. And guess many guys dislike to use a knob to let user do the choice. What's your opinions, Peter? > > -Mike > -- Thanks Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/