kernel module options for cpufreq
At the moment we set: # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE is not set CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE=y # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND is not set # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_CONSERVATIVE is not set CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE=m CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=m CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE=m This is not ideal from a power-saving point of view. In an ideal world we would: * remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE -- ondemand does a better job on all workloads * remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE -- we have nothing in userspace that needs this sort of control, and if we did, the latency would be horrible * remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE -- ondemand automatically throttles down to lowest, and is just a hardcoded state * compile into the kernel CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND -- we really want to be running this on all systems that support it * set ONDEMAND or PERFORMANCE to default as USERSPACE is just changed to something else by cpuspeed. You really don't want to be using USERSPACE at all. Matthew Garrett and I are working on a latency profile for power management, and having all these modules potentially loaded is bad. Comments? Richard. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: kernel module options for cpufreq
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:13:24 +0100 Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment we set: # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE is not set CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE=y # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND is not set # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_CONSERVATIVE is not set CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE=m CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=m CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE=m This is not ideal from a power-saving point of view. In an ideal world we would: * remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE -- ondemand does a better job on all workloads * remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE -- we have nothing in userspace that needs this sort of control, and if we did, the latency would be horrible * remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE -- ondemand automatically throttles down to lowest, and is just a hardcoded state * compile into the kernel CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND -- we really want to be running this on all systems that support it * set ONDEMAND or PERFORMANCE to default as USERSPACE is just changed to something else by cpuspeed. You really don't want to be using USERSPACE at all. Matthew Garrett and I are working on a latency profile for power management, and having all these modules potentially loaded is bad. Comments? I totally agree with your suggestions. -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
(no subject)
各位老总：您们好！ 诚祝：您们在2008年里；有鼠不尽的快乐！鼠不尽的收获！鼠不尽的钞票！ 鼠不尽的幸福！鼠不尽的美满生活！愿： 您们阖家欢乐！幸福安康！ 我公司可以长期提供：出口报关单，核销单，等等一系列手续；代理：出口 报关，商检，境内外运输..等等；还可以代办：出口欧盟许可证，欧盟产地证； 并且还有（广州国际贸易交易会）的摊位可以转让；价格特别优惠；有意者请来邮件 或来电联系。谢谢合作！ 电话：0755-81153047。 传真：0755-81172940。 手机：15817477278。 联系人：钟文辉。 电子邮箱:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 此致： 敬礼！ ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: kernel module options for cpufreq
Richard Hughes wrote: In an ideal world we would: * compile into the kernel CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND -- we really want to be running this on all systems that support it * set ONDEMAND or PERFORMANCE to default as USERSPACE is just changed to something else by cpuspeed. You really don't want to be using USERSPACE at all. How can an administrator set a known constant frequency, so that the CPU might be able to deliver the same amount of work per unit time, over a span of half an hour? Some performance measurement and tuning is much simpler when this is so. -- ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: kernel module options for cpufreq
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really don't want to be using USERSPACE at all. seems like cpufreq-applet uses it ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: revisit: turning some of the always used modules to built-in
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Roland McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Built-in code is easier to debug/diagnose. This may sound weird, but really, things inside the vmlinux allow for much better automated bug diagnostics/analysis. ( and the www.kerneloops.org site uses these, but can only do the more advanced automatic analysis on the built-in oopses) Can you point me to the details of this issue? very simply put: it's between getting this level of information: http://www.kerneloops.org/raw.php?rawid=32356 with pointing at the exact code, and only getting this http://www.kerneloops.org/raw.php?rawid=32287 -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: revisit: turning some of the always used modules to built-in
very simply put: it's between getting this level of information: http://www.kerneloops.org/raw.php?rawid=32356 with pointing at the exact code, and only getting this http://www.kerneloops.org/raw.php?rawid=32287 Thanks. I'd like to help improve the tools so that we can close this gap in the future. (I'm really just concerned with making some tools better. I am not saying anything about the desireability of building in modules.) I think one of my back-burner items would cover this. Maybe we can kibitz offline about the details. In brief poking I didn't find the code you use to generate the web reports. Thanks, Roland ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: kernel module options for cpufreq
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 22:56 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 21:16 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really don't want to be using USERSPACE at all. seems like cpufreq-applet uses it Sure, it shouldn't. If you're using userspace for thermal or latency reasons, then a setuid applet is totally the wrong way to achieve both of these :-) its not a setuid applet .. something seems to allow non root to do this (hal? consolekit? pam? udev? .. dunno) It currently uses consolehelper to get root. IMO, it shouldn't allow setting frequencies at all. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: kernel module options for cpufreq
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 09:01:34PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 21:16 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really don't want to be using USERSPACE at all. seems like cpufreq-applet uses it Sure, it shouldn't. If you're using userspace for thermal or latency reasons, then a setuid applet is totally the wrong way to achieve both of these :-) Maybe we can just use these as loadable modules (i.e. not built default) rather than built-in and loaded by default. DaveJ, do these suggestions seem acceptable? Having the userspace governor built-in means absolutely nothing in terms of overhead, until something in userspace actually uses it. When the cpuspeed init script starts up, the first thing it does is check if the CPU is on the whitelist for using ondemand, and if so, it starts up ondemand. Not a single line of the userspace governor code gets run in this case. The only time the above isn't true is when the CPU isn't on that whitelist, when it's incapable of running ondemand, in which case we need to use.. ta-da... userspace, and then we start the cpuspeed process. Again, if you're seeing overhead from using userspace, it's due to your CPU being crap. There's nothing we can do about it. Whilst ondemand will load on some of these CPUs, the associated overhead of switching is very noticable on benchmarks. Even 'conservative' was too demanding for some of the challenged CPUs. 'crap' here doesn't mean really old stuff too. Any pre-centrino Intel CPU, any VIA CPU before Nehemiah generation, all mobile Athlons. We're using ondemand on all K8's too, but the first generation also sucked iirc, but we're just sucking it up because a) it makes the already convoluted startup script even more messy and b) no-one can remember which stepping/models were affected. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
