Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] System-wide interface to specify the level of PM tuning

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1328 bytes --]

On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 18:10 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 
> > The point here is whether or not we want to have a way to make all of them be
> > enabled by default instead and see what happens, for example.
> 
> To some degree that seems like an admission of defeat: we can't possibly
> do the right thing by default, so we give up and add a way for the user
> to configure it.
>
> We should be selecting the most sensible combination of power and
> performance by default; we should not punt that question to the average
> user, *or* to the distros.

Not to the user, perhaps. But it's not *so* unreasonable to let each of
the distros tune things for *their* class of users. We might want base
profiles for 'server', 'desktop' and 'laptop on battery' that distros
work from.

But although that's complex, it's not the real problem.

The real problem, as others have said, is when we have power management
features which work fine for 99% of the population, but fail
occasionally on broken hardware.

We can't easily blacklist the known-broken devices or whitelist the
good ones, and we end up having to turn the feature off by default.

Sure, a DMI match on "HP" and "TO BE FILLED BY OEM" would often go a
long way for a certain class of problem, but even that's not sufficient
:)

-- 
dwmw2


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 5691 bytes --]