On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:25:39 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 01:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[cut]
> > In my opinion it would be much better to have a knob representing the
> > current
> > relative value of
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:25:39 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 04/29/2014 01:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[cut]
In my opinion it would be much better to have a knob representing the
current
relative value of energy to the
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:00:23 AM Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:11:47AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > I'm really wondering if the cgroup couldn't be a good solution:
> > >
> > > Amit
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:50:02 AM Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:23:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[cut]
> > The same applies to the maximum sustainable power draw limit more or less.
> > While it generally changes between "on battery" and "on AC power", it may
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:23:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Still, I have a rather fundamental problem with the notion that performance
> and energy efficiency are essentially at odds with each other, because quite
> often they aren't. What is good for performance is often good for
On 04/29/2014 01:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 04/28/2014 12:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:11:47AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[...]
> > I'm really wondering if the cgroup couldn't be a good solution:
> >
> > Amit pointed the conflict about the power vs performance with some
> >
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:07:31PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> I'm really wondering if the cgroup couldn't be a good solution:
>
> Amit pointed the conflict about the power vs performance with some
> applications. We want to have for example a game to run fast performance
> and some other
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:07:31PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I'm really wondering if the cgroup couldn't be a good solution:
Amit pointed the conflict about the power vs performance with some
applications. We want to have for example a game to run fast performance
and some other
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:11:47AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[...]
I'm really wondering if the cgroup couldn't be a good solution:
Amit pointed the conflict about the power vs performance with some
applications. We want
On 04/29/2014 01:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 04/28/2014 12:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:23:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Still, I have a rather fundamental problem with the notion that performance
and energy efficiency are essentially at odds with each other, because quite
often they aren't. What is good for performance is often good for energy
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:50:02 AM Morten Rasmussen wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:23:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[cut]
The same applies to the maximum sustainable power draw limit more or less.
While it generally changes between on battery and on AC power, it may
also
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:00:23 AM Morten Rasmussen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:11:47AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[...]
I'm really wondering if the cgroup couldn't be a good solution:
Amit pointed the
On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/28/2014 12:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a
> >> scheduler option in the sysfs and maybe
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:07:31PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> I'm really wondering if the cgroup couldn't be a good solution:
most my kernels don't have no stinking cgroups ;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On 04/28/2014 12:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a
scheduler option in the sysfs and maybe more options will follow.
I am wondering if we shouldn't create a new
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a
> scheduler option in the sysfs and maybe more options will follow.
>
> I am wondering if we shouldn't create a new cgroup for 'energy' and put
> everything in
On 04/25/2014 08:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:01:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
As the sysctl is some kind of ABI, I would like to make sure we reach a
consensus and discuss a bit about that.
We could make it a sysfs file, like /sys/power/state, which when read
On 04/25/2014 08:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:01:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
As the sysctl is some kind of ABI, I would like to make sure we reach a
consensus and discuss a bit about that.
We could make it a sysfs file, like /sys/power/state, which when read
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a
scheduler option in the sysfs and maybe more options will follow.
I am wondering if we shouldn't create a new cgroup for 'energy' and put
everything in
On 04/28/2014 12:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a
scheduler option in the sysfs and maybe more options will follow.
I am wondering if we shouldn't create a new
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:07:31PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I'm really wondering if the cgroup couldn't be a good solution:
most my kernels don't have no stinking cgroups ;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Monday, April 28, 2014 01:07:31 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 04/28/2014 12:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a
scheduler option in the sysfs and maybe more
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:55:37 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 02:18:58AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > And why do we have to do things that we hate it when they are done by
> > > others?
> >
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:55:37 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 02:18:58AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > And why do we have to do things that we hate it when they are done by
> > others?
>
> Well, I'm assuming that these things that I dislike are actually useful
>
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 08:17:44 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > Well, so now the question is whether or not we relly want to
> > > > always go to the "power" (or "energy efficiency" if you will)
> > > > mode if the system is on battery. That arguably may
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:55:37 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 02:18:58AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
And why do we have to do things that we hate it when they are done by
others?
Well, I'm
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 08:17:44 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
Well, so now the question is whether or not we relly want to
always go to the power (or energy efficiency if you will)
mode if the system is on battery. That arguably may
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:55:37 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 02:18:58AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
And why do we have to do things that we hate it when they are done by
others?
Well, I'm assuming that these things that I dislike are actually useful
and liked
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 02:18:58AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> And why do we have to do things that we hate it when they are done by others?
Well, I'm assuming that these things that I dislike are actually useful
and liked by the majority (me not fitting that is nothing new). If
everybody
* Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, so now the question is whether or not we relly want to
> > > always go to the "power" (or "energy efficiency" if you will)
> > > mode if the system is on battery. That arguably may not be a
> > > good thing even for energy efficiency depending on how
* Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
Well, so now the question is whether or not we relly want to
always go to the power (or energy efficiency if you will)
mode if the system is on battery. That arguably may not be a
good thing even for energy efficiency depending on how
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 02:18:58AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
And why do we have to do things that we hate it when they are done by others?
Well, I'm assuming that these things that I dislike are actually useful
and liked by the majority (me not fitting that is nothing new). If
everybody
On Friday, April 25, 2014 03:20:55 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> _trim_ emails!!! one of these days I'm going to write a bot to flame
> your head of if there's excessive quoting.
Words ...
> >
> > Well, so now the question is
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:01:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> As the sysctl is some kind of ABI, I would like to make sure we reach a
> consensus and discuss a bit about that.
We could make it a sysfs file, like /sys/power/state, which when read
provides the words it takes.
That is more
On 04/25/2014 03:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
_trim_ emails!!! one of these days I'm going to write a bot to flame
your head of if there's excessive quoting.
I had a offline conversation with Daniel about this since there are
The infinite wisdom of the original PC keyboard gifted us with backspace
and delete, use them!
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 04:24:49PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> In that case, "performance" should be the default so we don't change
> existing system behavior. And perhaps we want to keep these
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
_trim_ emails!!! one of these days I'm going to write a bot to flame
your head of if there's excessive quoting.
> > I had a offline conversation with Daniel about this since there are
> > other triggers - thermal constraints and
On 04/25/2014 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 04:24:49 PM Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
On 04/24/2014 03:13 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano
mailto:daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>>
On Friday, April 25, 2014 04:24:49 PM Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/24/2014 03:13 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> >> mailto:daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> This
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
>
> On 04/24/2014 03:13 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>> mailto:daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>> wrote:
>>
>> This patch adds a sysctl schedule balance option to choose against:
>>
>> *
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/24/2014 03:13 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org mailto:daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
This patch adds a sysctl schedule balance
On Friday, April 25, 2014 04:24:49 PM Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/24/2014 03:13 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org
On 04/25/2014 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 04:24:49 PM Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/24/2014 03:13 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
_trim_ emails!!! one of these days I'm going to write a bot to flame
your head of if there's excessive quoting.
I had a offline conversation with Daniel about this since there are
other triggers - thermal constraints and
The infinite wisdom of the original PC keyboard gifted us with backspace
and delete, use them!
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 04:24:49PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
In that case, performance should be the default so we don't change
existing system behavior. And perhaps we want to keep these energy
On 04/25/2014 03:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
_trim_ emails!!! one of these days I'm going to write a bot to flame
your head of if there's excessive quoting.
I had a offline conversation with Daniel about this since there are
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:01:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
As the sysctl is some kind of ABI, I would like to make sure we reach a
consensus and discuss a bit about that.
We could make it a sysfs file, like /sys/power/state, which when read
provides the words it takes.
That is more
On Friday, April 25, 2014 03:20:55 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
_trim_ emails!!! one of these days I'm going to write a bot to flame
your head of if there's excessive quoting.
Words ...
Well, so now the question is whether
On 04/24/2014 03:13 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano
mailto:daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>> wrote:
This patch adds a sysctl schedule balance option to choose against:
* auto(0)
* performance (1)
* power (2)
It relies
This patch adds a sysctl schedule balance option to choose against:
* auto(0)
* performance (1)
* power (2)
It relies on the recently added notifier to monitor the power supply changes.
If the scheduler balance option is set to 'auto', then when the system switches
to battery,
This patch adds a sysctl schedule balance option to choose against:
* auto(0)
* performance (1)
* power (2)
It relies on the recently added notifier to monitor the power supply changes.
If the scheduler balance option is set to 'auto', then when the system switches
to battery,
On 04/24/2014 03:13 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org mailto:daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
This patch adds a sysctl schedule balance option to choose against:
* auto(0)
* performance (1)
* power
54 matches
Mail list logo
