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, 08:05 PM
Richard Hughes
 
Default latency-policy call for review

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 14:44 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> 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.

Exactly, it's not actually a great friend at the moment.

> 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.

Well, it's a lot more blunt. In the long term I would like to get the
latency information from the kernel, so we can make some sort of sane
estimation of the latencies involved.

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

I guess you meant "have cpuspeed set the knobs" in which case that might
be sane. I would really like the latency information from the kernel so
we can still load ondemand even if the latency is horrible when we
configure for maximum latency for maximum powersaving.

Richard.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-16-2008, 08:28 PM
Richard Hughes
 
Default latency-policy call for review

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:29 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 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...

Yes, I've looked briefly at pm_qos. The set of scripts I propose are
much simpler than that. I think a set of simple scripts is a nice
initial half solution, and certainly not the finished article.

Richard.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-16-2008, 10:28 PM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default latency-policy call for review

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:29:15AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

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

To be honest, I'm moderately convinced that the pm_qos userspace
interface should be indicted for crimes against humanity. Lennart's
suggestion that this be implemented through cgroups seems a rather more
elegant solution.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-17-2008, 06:35 AM
Tomasz Torcz
 
Default latency-policy call for review

Dnia 2008-07-16, śro o godzinie 16:42 +0100, Richard Hughes pisze:
> [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 ]

I don't see scripts for /etc/pm for this features, only boot script.
Some of those setting need to be restored upon resume (HDD set by hdparm
must be for sure). Others should be disabled/enabled around suspend
(ALPM could make resume slow).

--
Tomasz Torcz

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-18-2008, 11:20 PM
Arjan van de Ven
 
Default latency-policy call for review

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:44:20 -0400
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
> My vote would be to rip out all of this from latencypolicy, and have
> lp set the sampling rate sysfs knobs.

which isn't all that useful since the sampling rate is going away ...
(replaced by microaccounting)

--
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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12 AM.

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