RE: [patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on cpufreqgovernor - v2

[Pallipadi, Venkatesh]

>-----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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/