>-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Jones [mailto:davej@xxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:28 PM >To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh >Cc: Ingo Molnar; H Peter Anvin; Thomas Gleixner; Len Brown; >linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >Venkatesh Pallipadi >Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on >cpufreq governor - v2 > >On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:14:56PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote: > > > + if (!strncmp(gov->name, "performance", strlen("performance"))) > > + epb_val = ENERGY_PERF_BIAS_PERF; > > + else if (!strncmp(gov->name, "powersave", strlen("powersave"))) > > + epb_val = ENERGY_PERF_BIAS_POWER; > > + else > > + epb_val = ENERGY_PERF_BIAS_ONDEMAND; > > + > > + set_epb_on_cpu(epb_val, cpu); > > + return 0; > >hardcoding a list of cpufreq governors is kinda icky, but I don't have >a better solution. We'll just have to be mindful of it if we ever >get around to finally making performance/powersave personalities >of ondemand as was discussed years ago. Yes. In that case we will have to find some other way to tie this to user preference. > >What if the governor is set to 'userspace' ? >powernowd/cpufreqd are sort of ondemand-done-in-userspace, but there >may also be other userspace governors we don't know about. >I suppose it's not catastrophic.. > Userspace/ondemand/conservative can all be at middle ground here as they are mostly used where user expects adaptive kind of behaviour. I did think about exporting this as a new tunable in /sys and let userspace deal with it. But, that doesn't help with having sane default values and users (background apps) may shoot themselves in the foot with it. Thanks, Venki-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
