Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: idle: Add sched balance option

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

_trim_ emails!!! one of these days I'm going to write a bot to flame
your head of if there's excessive quoting.

> > I had a offline conversation with Daniel about this since there are
> > other triggers - thermal constraints and game-like apps being examples
> > - that might want to override the system policy. He intended
> > "performance" mode to mean the existing code paths and "power" mode to
> > mean *additional* new heuristics for energy-efficiency. The power
> > supply assumption is just the first one of those heuristics.
> 
> Well, so now the question is whether or not we relly want to always
> go to the "power" (or "energy efficiency" if you will) mode if the system
> is on battery.  That arguably may not be a good thing even for energy
> efficiency depending on how exactly the modes are defined.

Nobody is talking about always. But in general it seems a good enough
approach. Hell, many of the AC/BAT switches in todays power management
crap things are not always right.

Do I want it to dim the LCD further when I unplug the laptop -- mostly
no, but still it does. And the most annoying one is that it reduces the
screen blank time to something near 5 seconds or so.

Why would this be any different? If you know what you want you can turn
the knob.

> So in my opinion it's too early to add things like that at this point.

Meh.. 
--
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/