Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n

[Peter Zijlstra]

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...



--
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/