Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:53:49 +0100 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v1] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n |
| |
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 02:36:02PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> For example if you're in a data center at a specific operating point and > you would need to crank up the air condition at significant power cost it might > be well better overall to force all servers to a lower operating point > and avoid that.
Sure, there are cases where you have additional constraints. But within those constraints, you probably want to run as fast as possible.
> That said in general you all should have complained when ondemand behaviour > was introduced.
ignore_nice seems to be set to 0 by default?
> Also it's unclear that the general "race to idle" heuristic really > applies to the case of the "keep sockets idle" power optimization > that started this thread. > > Usually package C states bring much more than core C states > and keeping another package completely idle saves likely > more power than the power cost of running something a little > bit slower on a package that is already busy on another core.
I'd agree with that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
| |