Re: Power Management framework proposal
- From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:26:28 -0700
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 23:49 -0700, david@xxxxxxx wrote:
this approach would allow the transition of ALL drivers to the new mode of
operation in one fell swoop, and then adding additional power management
features is just adding to the existing list rather then implementing new
functions.
I have a concern with this approach though. It seems to assume that
there is one global thing somewhere that sets the system state; in my
experience that is the wrong approach; in fact there is a very definite
evidence that there are many decisions on power that are to be made
local at a high frequency. An example of this is the processor speed;
the ondemand governer does exactly this for the cpus that can switch
speeds fast; it's just impossible to beat such a local, fast decision
with anything on a global scale.
On the other hand, some things (the high level goals and constraints)
are obviously global.
However, your design seems to want to put the low level settings in a
global thing, and that is just a mistake.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Power Management framework proposal
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: Power Management framework proposal
- From: david
- Re: Power Management framework proposal
- References:
- Power Management framework proposal
- From: david
- Power Management framework proposal
- Prev by Date: Re: Pata support for IDE Controller 82801G ICH7 in Linux 2.6.22
- Next by Date: Re: sparse breakage (x86_64: Add vDSO for x86-64 with gettimeofday/clock_gettime/getcpu)
- Previous by thread: Re: [linux-pm] Power Management framework proposal
- Next by thread: Re: Power Management framework proposal
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|