[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How well would _this_ notion of an operating point scale up?
I have this feeling that it's maybe better attuned to "scale down"
sorts of problems (maybe cell phones) than to a big NUMA box. I can
see how a batch scheduled server might want to fire up only enough
How well would _this_ notion of an operating point scale up?
I have this feeling that it's maybe better attuned to "scale down"
sorts of problems (maybe cell phones) than to a big NUMA box. I can
see how a batch scheduled server might want to fire up only enough
components to run the next
How well would _this_ notion of an operating point scale up?
I have this feeling that it's maybe better attuned to scale down
sorts of problems (maybe cell phones) than to a big NUMA box. I can
see how a batch scheduled server might want to fire up only enough
components to run the next
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How well would _this_ notion of an operating point scale up?
I have this feeling that it's maybe better attuned to scale down
sorts of problems (maybe cell phones) than to a big NUMA box. I can
see how a batch scheduled server might want to fire up only enough
Daniel Petrini wrote:
I'd like to have an idea of how the powerop would evolve to address:
a) exporting all operating points to sysfs - that would be useful for
a policy manager in user space, or the user policy will already be
aware of the ops?
For different usage models I'd expect to see
> If these general ideas of arbitrary platform power parameters and
> operating points are deemed worthy of continued consideration, I'll
> propose what I view is the next step: interfaces to create and activate
> operating points from userspace.
>
> At that point it should be possible to write
If these general ideas of arbitrary platform power parameters and
operating points are deemed worthy of continued consideration, I'll
propose what I view is the next step: interfaces to create and activate
operating points from userspace.
At that point it should be possible to write power
Daniel Petrini wrote:
I'd like to have an idea of how the powerop would evolve to address:
a) exporting all operating points to sysfs - that would be useful for
a policy manager in user space, or the user policy will already be
aware of the ops?
For different usage models I'd expect to see
Geoff Levand wrote:
I'm wondering if anything could be gained by having the whole
struct powerop_point defined in asm/powerop.h, and treat it as an
opaque structure at this level. That way, things other than just
ints could be passed between the policy manager and the backend,
although I
Todd Poynor wrote:
...
> ===
> --- linux-2.6.12.orig/include/linux/powerop.h 1970-01-01
> 00:00:00.0 +
> +++ linux-2.6.12/include/linux/powerop.h 2005-08-03
> 01:10:55.0 +
> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> +/*
> + *
Geoff Levand wrote:
I'm wondering if anything could be gained by having the whole
struct powerop_point defined in asm/powerop.h, and treat it as an
opaque structure at this level. That way, things other than just
ints could be passed between the policy manager and the backend,
although I
Todd Poynor wrote:
...
===
--- linux-2.6.12.orig/include/linux/powerop.h 1970-01-01
00:00:00.0 +
+++ linux-2.6.12/include/linux/powerop.h 2005-08-03
01:10:55.0 +
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+/*
+ * PowerOP
12 matches
Mail list logo
