Re: [patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on cpufreqgovernor

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> >You should say what the setting does; you can mention below what MSR
> >it corresponds to, but "Control IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS setting" is not
> >suitable user documentation.
> >
> >> Also, the expectation here is that kernel will do the right thing by
> >> default. The option here is to the user who_knows_what_he_is_doing to
> >> override the kernel default.
> >
> >You did not give user enough information to do anything intelligent...
> 
> I have rephrased it in the newer version sent yday with more info.

Good.

> >> > Also... does it make change to tweak the setting during 
> >runtime? Maybe
> >> > different settings for AC and battery power?
> >> 
> >> Yes. Matthew mentioned in other response aboue setting this based on
> >> freq. For the CPUs that support this feature currently, we don't see
> >> advantage in setting this feature at run time.
> >
> >If the feature is useless, then why set it at all?
> 
> I just said changing it at run time doesn't give us benefits. Not
>that

That can be only true if it does not give benefits period... AC and
battery power are quite different scenarios.

> the feature is useless. Having the default value for the tunable in
> mid-range does increase energy-efficiency than the tunable being
> at performance level.

So... what does it really do? What is the difference in power
consumption, and what is the difference in performance?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/