From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754114AbaDYNWW (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:22:22 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:60638 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751606AbaDYNVE (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:21:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:20:55 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Amit Kucheria , Daniel Lezcano , Ingo Molnar , Lists linaro-kernel , Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: idle: Add sched balance option Message-ID: <20140425132055.GC11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1398342291-16322-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <535911DC.9050109@linaro.org> <2713863.BLQTYQm2Oa@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2713863.BLQTYQm2Oa@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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..