FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-16-2008, 03:42 PM
Richard Hughes
 
Default latency-policy call for review

Anyone want to review this package? It's designed to make it easy to set
system latency power tunables.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455149

Once its in cvs, I'll be suggesting it's installed by default for Fedora
10. The output is something like this:

[root@hughsie-work sys]# service latency-policy restart
Setting best-effort system latency: 10000μs [ OK ]
• Enabling ALPM link powersave [ OK ]
• Enabling ASPM powersave [ OK ]
• Enabling ALSA powerdown [ OK ]
• Enabling ondemand governor [ OK ]
• Enabling WiFi poll powersave [ OK ]

Admins can tweak the system latency and everything is auto calculated,
or they can just force disable or enable of certain modes. The default
policy provides substantial power savings. I'll post power numbers when
the new 2.6.26 kernel is pushed into F9.

More details are on my blog:
http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2008/07/01/latency-policy/

Thanks.

Richard.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-16-2008, 04:51 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default latency-policy call for review

Richard Hughes (hughsient@gmail.com) said:
> Anyone want to review this package? It's designed to make it easy to set
> system latency power tunables.

How does it coexist with, or obsolete, a separate cpuspeed service?

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-16-2008, 05:29 PM
Arjan van de Ven
 
Default latency-policy call for review

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:42:42 +0100
Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com> wrote:

does this use the pm_qos kernel infrastructure?
If not.. it probably really really should...


--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-16-2008, 06:44 PM
Dave Jones
 
Default latency-policy call for review

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:36PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Richard Hughes (hughsient@gmail.com) said:
> > Anyone want to review this package? It's designed to make it easy to set
> > system latency power tunables.
>
> How does it coexist with, or obsolete, a separate cpuspeed service?

last one to run stomps over the other.

this one also seems to lack a lot of the logic in cpuspeeds initscript
to determine if we're actually capable of running the ondemand governor.

If the CPU is capable of running ondemand in a manner that it doesn't
introduce performance regressions, we choose it already in cpuspeed.
latency policy seems to be trying to second guess all of that.

My vote would be to rip out all of this from latencypolicy, and have lp
set the sampling rate sysfs knobs.

Dave

--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org