Subject: Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
Date: Thursday 26th June 2008 21:43:04 UTC (over 8 years ago)
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 23:37 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > > Some workload managers already do that - they provision cpu and memory > > resources based on request rates and response times. Such software is > > in a better position to make a decision whether they can live with > > reduced performance due to power saving mode or not. The point I am > > making is the the kernel doesn't have any notion of transactional > > performance > > The kernel definitely knows about burstiness vs non burstiness at least > (although it currently has no long term memory for that). Does it need > more than that for this? Anyways if nice levels were used that is not > even needed, because it's ok to run niced processes slower. > > And your workload manager could just nice processes. It should probably > do that anyways to tell ondemand you don't need full frequency. Except that I want my nice 19 distcc processes to utilize as much cpu as possible, but just not bother any other stuff I might be doing...