On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:45 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:

> On Monday, July 06, 2015 11:40:17 AM NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 02:22:02 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki"
> > <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > This is a re-occuring theme, but we discussed it last month during
> LinuxCon
> > > Japan with Kristen, Grant and other people and pretty much the only
> conclusion
> > > we could reach was to propose it as the KS topic, so here it goes.
> > >
> > > As systems get more and more complex and more and more internally
> integrated
> > > over time, every new generation of them requires an increased amount
> of tuning
> > > to achieve satisfactory balance between energy usage and performance.
> You need
> > > to know what to tune and how to do that, it needs to be done from user
> space or
> > > requires special Kconfig options to be set (or even out-of-the-tree
> patches to
> > > be applied in extreme cases) and so on.  All that becomes more and
> more esoteric
> > > and quite frankly I'm not sure how many users are able to do that on
> their new
> > > systems.
> > >
> > > That leads to a question whether or not a global interface
> (sysfs-based,
> > > command line etc.) could be added to the kernel that might be used to
> make a
> > > certain amount of the tuning happen already at the kernel level.  For
> example,
> > > it might change the default runtime PM control setting for all devices
> from
> > > "on" to "auto", automatically enable other runtime power management
> features
> > > available from various bus types (SATA link power management, USB LPM,
> others)
> > > and generally enable power management techiques disabled by default
> because
> > > enabling them may lead to performance regressions.
> > >
> > > So do we need such an interface?  If not, why not?  If so, how should
> it be
> > > designed, what should it cover etc.?
> > >
> >
> > This sounds like an important topic, but I don't think I quite
> > understand the question.
> > We already have ".../power/runtime_enabled" and various other tunables.
> > What more could you need in a kernel interface?
>
> The problem is that the defaults for all of those tunables are
> performance-oriented,
> so you need to flip many of them (if not all) to become power-oriented.
>
> That usually mean flipping a number of knobs every time you boot the
> system.
>
> > I can see that much more than an interface is needed - we need a tool
> > that makes use of that interface.
>
> That is one possible approach, but that tool would need to be developed in
> a lockstep with the kernel anyway, so it knows about all of the new
> features
> added to the kernel over time that have non-trivial power vs performance
> characteristics.
>

Deployment of a user space tool is the big issue - like Rafael said it is
hard to keep up with all the new settings that might be present and the
kernel will have this knowledge.


>
> > Maybe a database of different systems together with tuning settings for
> > different goals.
> > Then some tools detects the particular hardware it is running on, and
> > applies the tuning rules.
> >
> > (a tiny bit like a devicetree database which contains configuration
> > rules).
> >
> > Or have I missed the point completely?
>
> No, I don't think you have missed it, but then most of subsystems and
> drivers
> in the kernel know what it means to be "power-friendly", so they should be
> able
> to choose their defaults on the basis of one single setting somewhere.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
Also some components can be present on performance sensitive platforms as
well as power sensitive platforms, so it would be better if they chose
their default setting based on a system wide policy default that can be set
by a platform driver.


> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
>