Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
quoted text
> I am trying to find answer to the question: Should we have the power
> saving tunable as 'nice' value per process or system wide?
> 
> How should we interpret the POWER parameter in a datacenter with power
> constraint as mentioned in this thread?  Or in a simple case of AC vs
> battery in a laptop.

I agree with Tim re setting them all independently, and suggest that 
they're all really per-process values: setting power saving 
system-wide is meaningful, but so are individual settings.
There is therefor an argument for making them subsets of
a higher-level nice program.

Mind you, the order in which one *implements* the capability,
and whether one does powernice first and adds it to nice later
is your call!  I have no idea of how hard what I suggested is (;-))

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown            | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto      | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@sun.com                 |                      -- Mark Twain
(905) 943-1983, cell: (647) 833-9377, (800) 555-9786 x56583
bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191#
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/