On Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:26:48 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, December 06, 2012 01:15:13 PM Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On 12/6/2012 12:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > >> My idea for a policy "dial" is mostly > > >> > > >> * Uncompromised performance > > >> * Balanced - biased towards performance (say, defined to be lowest power at most a 2 1/2% perf hit) > > >> * Balanced (say, at most a 5% perf hit) > > >> * Balanced - biased towards lower power (sat, at most a 10% perf hit) > > >> * Uncompromised lowest power > > >> > > >> we can argue about the exact %ages, but the idea is to give at least some reasonably definition that people can understand, > > >> but that also can be measured > > > > > > It looks like you'd like a tunable setting the maximum allowed performance hit > > > due to power management. Is that correct? > > > > basically yes, but not as a continuous dial (that's not practical), but as a > > certain number of sensible steps.... I'm not sure it makes sense to have more than 5 steps. > > Then you need to get the people to agree on what the "sensible steps" are. :-) That said starting with a small value and going up exponentially, like (1->)2->4->8->16->32->64, sounds like a good idea. But the sysadmin will also need to know how much power s/he is going to save by sacrificing that much performance, ie. if the result is worth the effort. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
