Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n

[Tim Connors]

Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said on Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:38:53 +0200:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> >> 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...
> 
> They already won't do that if you run ondemand and cpufreq. It won't
> crank up the frequency for niced processes.

Shouldn't there be a powernice, just as there is an ionice and a nice?
Just as you don't always want CPU priority and IO priority to be
coupled, Peter has just demonstrated a very good case where you don't
want power and CPU choices to be coupled.  Whether the ondemand
governor of CPUFreq counts a process as wanting the CPU to run at a
higher speed, and these scheduler decisions should be controlled by
powernice.  By default, perhaps a high powernice should equal a high
nice equal to a high ionice, but the user should be able to change
this.  The last thing you want is a distcc process taking up lots of
time, burning more Joules because it runs 10 times longer with only
half the power.  It's not a nice choice between that and running at
nice 0 where it interferes with the user's editing.
--
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/