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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Kernel Team

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-16-2009, 01:58 PM
Matt Zimmerman
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

We currently ship powernowd in the desktop seed, its main purpose being to
load cpufreq modules set up the kernel's CPU frequency scaling governor. If
(and only if) that fails, it starts up powernowd instead. I'm not sure on
which platforms that's still needed, if any.

Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?

--
- mdz

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 02-16-2009, 01:58 PM
Matt Zimmerman
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

We currently ship powernowd in the desktop seed, its main purpose being to
load cpufreq modules set up the kernel's CPU frequency scaling governor. If
(and only if) that fails, it starts up powernowd instead. I'm not sure on
which platforms that's still needed, if any.

Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?

--
- mdz

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 02-16-2009, 03:10 PM
Alan Pope
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

2009/2/16 Matt Zimmerman <mdz@ubuntu.com>:
> Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
> automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
> in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?
>

Don't know if this has any bearing on your decision, but from the
powernowd maintainer/author site [0].

"Took me long enough, but this is the final release of powernowd. The
ondemand kernel governor seems to be the wave of the future, and "good
enough for me". I do still use it on older kernels, and it's been rock
steady for years. v1.00 is just a couple of small cleanups, and
running it through valgrind to clean a couple of pedantic memory
issues. PowerNowd does everything it set out to do, and is small,
efficient, and complete. Barring any brown-paper-bag style bugs, this
will be the final release."

Cheers,
Al.

[0] http://www.deater.net/john/powernowd.html

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 02-16-2009, 03:10 PM
Alan Pope
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

2009/2/16 Matt Zimmerman <mdz@ubuntu.com>:
> Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
> automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
> in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?
>

Don't know if this has any bearing on your decision, but from the
powernowd maintainer/author site [0].

"Took me long enough, but this is the final release of powernowd. The
ondemand kernel governor seems to be the wave of the future, and "good
enough for me". I do still use it on older kernels, and it's been rock
steady for years. v1.00 is just a couple of small cleanups, and
running it through valgrind to clean a couple of pedantic memory
issues. PowerNowd does everything it set out to do, and is small,
efficient, and complete. Barring any brown-paper-bag style bugs, this
will be the final release."

Cheers,
Al.

[0] http://www.deater.net/john/powernowd.html

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 02-16-2009, 04:25 PM
Dustin Kirkland
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> We currently ship powernowd in the desktop seed, its main purpose being to
> load cpufreq modules set up the kernel's CPU frequency scaling governor. If
> (and only if) that fails, it starts up powernowd instead. I'm not sure on
> which platforms that's still needed, if any.
>
> Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
> automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
> in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?

Just last week, I added powernowd to the server seed for these reasons
(to load the cpufreq modules and set the governor to 'on-demand' by
default).

If there is a simpler mechanism for accomplishing this (eg, set that
default in the kernel), we could drop the powernowd package from the
server seed as well.

:-Dustin

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 02-16-2009, 04:25 PM
Dustin Kirkland
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> We currently ship powernowd in the desktop seed, its main purpose being to
> load cpufreq modules set up the kernel's CPU frequency scaling governor. If
> (and only if) that fails, it starts up powernowd instead. I'm not sure on
> which platforms that's still needed, if any.
>
> Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
> automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
> in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?

Just last week, I added powernowd to the server seed for these reasons
(to load the cpufreq modules and set the governor to 'on-demand' by
default).

If there is a simpler mechanism for accomplishing this (eg, set that
default in the kernel), we could drop the powernowd package from the
server seed as well.

:-Dustin

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 02-16-2009, 04:50 PM
Oliver Grawert
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

hi,
On Mo, 2009-02-16 at 11:25 -0600, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > We currently ship powernowd in the desktop seed, its main purpose being to
> > load cpufreq modules set up the kernel's CPU frequency scaling governor. If
> > (and only if) that fails, it starts up powernowd instead. I'm not sure on
> > which platforms that's still needed, if any.
> >
> > Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
> > automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
> > in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?
>
> Just last week, I added powernowd to the server seed for these reasons
> (to load the cpufreq modules and set the governor to 'on-demand' by
> default).
>
> If there is a simpler mechanism for accomplishing this (eg, set that
> default in the kernel), we could drop the powernowd package from the
> server seed as well.
well, its just a set of test scripts that are executed from the
powernowd initscripts (not even related to powernowd), imho even if we
keep them they should be split out into a separate package with a more
informative name ...

ciao
oli
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 02-16-2009, 06:21 PM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:58:01PM +0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
> automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
> in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?

The appropriate fallback path for the modules is sufficiently awkward
that autoloading isn't especially practical.

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

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 02-16-2009, 06:21 PM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:58:01PM +0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
> automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
> in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?

The appropriate fallback path for the modules is sufficiently awkward
that autoloading isn't especially practical.

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

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 02-16-2009, 07:29 PM
Andy Whitcroft
 
Default powernowd vs. ondemand governor

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:58:01PM +0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> We currently ship powernowd in the desktop seed, its main purpose being to
> load cpufreq modules set up the kernel's CPU frequency scaling governor. If
> (and only if) that fails, it starts up powernowd instead. I'm not sure on
> which platforms that's still needed, if any.
>
> Is this still an appropriate default? Aren't the necessary modules loaded
> automatically now? Would it be a better idea to set the default to ondemand
> in the kernel and drop powernowd altogether?

When this came up at UDS the response was that booting was faster with
the mode set to performance. Thus it is set to performance by default,
and then changed to ondemand once boot is complete. Perhaps the
bootchart capable amongst us could re-confirm that.

-apw

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16 AM.

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