| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
These kernel interfaces got removed by:
commit 8e7fbcbc22c12414bcc9dfdd683637f58fb32759
Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Mon Jan 9 11:28:35 2012 +0100
sched: Remove stale power aware scheduling remnants and dysfunctional knobs
No need to further keep them as userspace configurations.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
It's been broken forever (i.e. it's not scheduling in a power
aware fashion), as reported by Suresh and others sending
patches, and nobody cares enough to fix it properly ...
so remove it to make space free for something better.
There's various problems with the code as it stands today, first
and foremost the user interface which is bound to topology
levels and has multiple values per level. This results in a
state explosion which the administrator or distro needs to
master and almost nobody does.
Furthermore large configuration state spaces aren't good, it
means the thing doesn't just work right because it's either
under so many impossibe to meet constraints, or even if
there's an achievable state workloads have to be aware of
it precisely and can never meet it for dynamic workloads.
So pushing this kind of decision to user-space was a bad idea
even with a single knob - it's exponentially worse with knobs
on every node of the topology.
There is a proposal to replace the user interface with a single
3 state knob:
sched_balance_policy := { performance, power, auto }
where 'auto' would be the preferred default which looks at things
like Battery/AC mode and possible cpufreq state or whatever the hw
exposes to show us power use expectations - but there's been no
progress on it in the past many months.
Aside from that, the actual implementation of the various knobs
is known to be broken. There have been sporadic attempts at
fixing things but these always stop short of reaching a mergable
state.
Therefore this wholesale removal with the hopes of spurring
people who care to come forward once again and work on a
coherent replacement.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1326104915.2442.53.camel@twins
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
|
CPU power consumption vs performance tuning is no longer
limited to CPU frequency switching anymore: deep sleep states,
traditional dynamic frequency scaling and hidden turbo/boost
frequencies are tied close together and depend on each other.
The first two exist on different architectures like PPC, Itanium and
ARM, the latter (so far) only on X86. On X86 the APU (CPU+GPU) will
only run most efficiently if CPU and GPU has proper power management
in place.
Users and Developers want to have *one* tool to get an overview what
their system supports and to monitor and debug CPU power management
in detail. The tool should compile and work on as many architectures
as possible.
Once this tool stabilizes a bit, it is intended to replace the
Intel-specific tools in tools/power/x86
Signed-off-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
|
