Hi Folks,
We would like to replace power-profiles-daemon with tuned. There are many power-related software that offer similar functions. Advanced users may install several power management tools, for example, tuned and power-profiles-daemon (ppd), and get confused about which tools manage the system and cause unexpected behaviors for the system. By integrating power-profiles-daemon with tuned, the user can get extra features to finetune the system, and the basic feature provided by ppd can be used according to the user's demand. It also can reduce the efforts of the maintainer.
The impact of this plan would be gnome-control-center (power panel), KDE, sysprof, and tuned (or some projects depending on ppd). We should move the ppd API and features to tuned to provide the same features of it. From the API aspect, we also can design a new API for the basic feature, ppd provided but the software dependent on ppd should be modified to use the new API. Although, for the long-term plan, a set of new API is a good option. For the short-term plan, moving the original one to tuned is good for those applications depending on ppd.
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
If you have any suggestions, please let us know.
Thank you. :)
Hello
On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 15:29 +0800, Kate Hsuan wrote:
Hi Folks,
We would like to replace power-profiles-daemon with tuned.
....
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
If you have any suggestions, please let us know.
Just a quick observation that tuned is python mostly with 10 times the installed footprint of power-profiles-daemon.
If power management is as fundamental as it seems recently I would really like to see minimal-footprint-closer-to-core thingie.. , i.e. something systemd-*... maybe.
- Yanko
Hi Yanko,
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 5:49 PM Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com wrote:
Hello
On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 15:29 +0800, Kate Hsuan wrote:
Hi Folks,
We would like to replace power-profiles-daemon with tuned.
....
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
If you have any suggestions, please let us know.
Just a quick observation that tuned is python mostly with 10 times the installed footprint of power-profiles-daemon.
Thank you for your feedback. :)
tuned can provide advanced settings for more kinds of applications and power management technologies. Moreover, the basic function (ppd) can be kept and integrated with tuned. Therefore, the user can select between the advanced and basic modes according to the demands. The benefits of it are greater than the installation overhead, I think.
If power management is as fundamental as it seems recently I would really like to see minimal-footprint-closer-to-core thingie.. , i.e. something systemd-*... maybe.
It is a good way but it is a bit difficult to expand the power management function.
- Yanko
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 14:30 +0800, Kate Hsuan wrote:
Hi Yanko,
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 5:49 PM Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com wrote:
Hello
On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 15:29 +0800, Kate Hsuan wrote:
Hi Folks,
We would like to replace power-profiles-daemon with tuned.
....
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
If you have any suggestions, please let us know.
Just a quick observation that tuned is python mostly with 10 times the installed footprint of power-profiles-daemon.
Thank you for your feedback. :)
tuned can provide advanced settings for more kinds of applications and power management technologies. Moreover, the basic function (ppd) can be kept and integrated with tuned. Therefore, the user can select between the advanced and basic modes according to the demands. The benefits of it are greater than the installation overhead, I think.
Today, after a routine update, power-profiles-daemon was replaced here with tuned(-ppd) and its not only the installation overhead, but a runtime one: ppd is roughly 7MB rss tuned + tuned-ppd is roughly 60MB rss.
Memory is cheap now but IMHO this is all still very sub-optimal.
- Yanko
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 03:29:44PM +0800, Kate Hsuan wrote:
Hi Folks,
We would like to replace power-profiles-daemon with tuned. There are many power-related software that offer similar functions. Advanced users may install several power management tools, for example, tuned and power-profiles-daemon (ppd), and get confused about which tools manage the system and cause unexpected behaviors for the system. By integrating power-profiles-daemon with tuned, the user can get extra features to finetune the system, and the basic feature provided by ppd can be used according to the user's demand. It also can reduce the efforts of the maintainer.
The impact of this plan would be gnome-control-center (power panel),
Also gnome-shell directly integrates with power-profiles-daemon. It is critical that both gnome-shell and gnome-control-center has no logic of their own to decide what a high level profile is, and changing the profile in gnome-control-center should immediately be reflected in gnome-shell, and vice versa. This is important because tweaking the profile with either gnome-control-center and gnome-shell should for all practical purposes do the exact same thing, meaning any actual logic must be a layer below them.
This means something, e.g. tuned or a wrapper around it, needs to provide these high level profiles that power-profiles-daemon currently expose.
KDE, sysprof, and tuned (or some projects depending on ppd). We should move the ppd API and features to tuned to provide the same features of it. From the API aspect, we also can design a new API for the basic feature, ppd provided but the software dependent on ppd should be modified to use the new API. Although, for the long-term plan, a set of new API is a good option. For the short-term plan, moving the original one to tuned is good for those applications depending on ppd.
Any long term future API must still provide the high level "dumb" API for gnome-shell and gnome-control-center to consume for the reasons described above.
Jonas
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
If you have any suggestions, please let us know.
Thank you. :)
BR, Kate _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Hi Jonas,
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 2:20 PM Jonas Ådahl jadahl@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 03:29:44PM +0800, Kate Hsuan wrote:
Hi Folks,
We would like to replace power-profiles-daemon with tuned. There are many power-related software that offer similar functions. Advanced users may install several power management tools, for example, tuned and power-profiles-daemon (ppd), and get confused about which tools manage the system and cause unexpected behaviors for the system. By integrating power-profiles-daemon with tuned, the user can get extra features to finetune the system, and the basic feature provided by ppd can be used according to the user's demand. It also can reduce the efforts of the maintainer.
The impact of this plan would be gnome-control-center (power panel),
Also gnome-shell directly integrates with power-profiles-daemon. It is critical that both gnome-shell and gnome-control-center has no logic of their own to decide what a high level profile is, and changing the profile in gnome-control-center should immediately be reflected in gnome-shell, and vice versa. This is important because tweaking the profile with either gnome-control-center and gnome-shell should for all practical purposes do the exact same thing, meaning any actual logic must be a layer below them.
This means something, e.g. tuned or a wrapper around it, needs to provide these high level profiles that power-profiles-daemon currently expose.
Thank you for noticing this.
We knew those gnome application gets the power profiles from ppd through dbus. Both legacy API and new API should be provided and implemented. So, a bit of engineer overhead is needed for this integration proposal. (API integration for the client and tuned...etc.)
KDE, sysprof, and tuned (or some projects depending on ppd). We should move the ppd API and features to tuned to provide the same features of it. From the API aspect, we also can design a new API for the basic feature, ppd provided but the software dependent on ppd should be modified to use the new API. Although, for the long-term plan, a set of new API is a good option. For the short-term plan, moving the original one to tuned is good for those applications depending on ppd.
Any long term future API must still provide the high level "dumb" API for gnome-shell and gnome-control-center to consume for the reasons described above.
Yes, sure. Thanks for noticing it. There are advantages and drawbacks for keeping old and having a new API. We'll evaluate that and come out with a solution. Also, I can help with switching to the new API for gnome-shell and g-c-c. :)
Jonas
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
If you have any suggestions, please let us know.
Thank you. :)
BR, Kate _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Hi Kate,
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:30 AM Kate Hsuan hpa@redhat.com wrote:
... By integrating power-profiles-daemon with tuned, the user can get extra features to finetune the system, and the basic feature provided by ppd can be used according to the user's demand. It also can reduce the efforts of the maintainer.
...
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
I just noticed that the change proposal contains the line:
"We expected that the user can set those profile, tuned provided through gnome-control-panel. To minimize the information to the user, the power panel would provide a simple and advanced mode to show the power profiles. If the users want to finetune the system, they can switch to the advanced mode themselves."
It's a bit unclear if this is a definite plan, a requirement, or more of a speculative ambition. However, I should probably be clear that from a GNOME design perspective, an advanced power profile settings mode would likely be a tough sell. Exposing arbitrary user-defined profiles would also pose some challenges which it might be difficult to overcome.
If this change proposal does require UXD changes to GNOME, then I'd suggest reaching out to us in advance to discuss them.
Thanks,
Allan
On 06/11/2023 17:30, Allan Day wrote:
Hi Kate,
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:30 AM Kate Hsuan hpa@redhat.com wrote:
... By integrating power-profiles-daemon with tuned, the user can get extra features to finetune the system, and the basic feature provided by ppd can be used according to the user's demand. It also can reduce the efforts of the maintainer.
...
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
I just noticed that the change proposal contains the line:
"We expected that the user can set those profile, tuned provided through gnome-control-panel. To minimize the information to the user, the power panel would provide a simple and advanced mode to show the power profiles. If the users want to finetune the system, they can switch to the advanced mode themselves."
It's a bit unclear if this is a definite plan, a requirement, or more of a speculative ambition. However, I should probably be clear that from a GNOME design perspective, an advanced power profile settings mode would likely be a tough sell. Exposing arbitrary user-defined profiles would also pose some challenges which it might be difficult to overcome.
If this change proposal does require UXD changes to GNOME, then I'd suggest reaching out to us in advance to discuss them.
Wouldn't it also be logical for UPower to replace power-profiles-daemon? UPower is already integrated into GNOME Settings while tuned is not, not having an additional dependency might be nicer and beneficial for other distributions which might not have a tuned package at all.
Greetings,
Jelle van der Waa
Hi Jelle,
Thank you for the suggestion.
Upower is one of my backup plans and I plan to start to move all the ppd API and features to Upower. But considering the comment from Mark Pearson, tuned allows the vendor to implement their profile in a much more flexible manner. Also, tuned provides a set of dbus APIs to use so I think it is not difficult to integrate with GNOME applications.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:54 AM Jelle van der Waa jelle@vdwaa.nl wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:30, Allan Day wrote:
Hi Kate,
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:30 AM Kate Hsuan hpa@redhat.com wrote:
... By integrating power-profiles-daemon with tuned, the user can get extra features to finetune the system, and the basic feature provided by ppd can be used according to the user's demand. It also can reduce the efforts of the maintainer.
...
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
I just noticed that the change proposal contains the line:
"We expected that the user can set those profile, tuned provided through gnome-control-panel. To minimize the information to the user, the power panel would provide a simple and advanced mode to show the power profiles. If the users want to finetune the system, they can switch to the advanced mode themselves."
It's a bit unclear if this is a definite plan, a requirement, or more of a speculative ambition. However, I should probably be clear that from a GNOME design perspective, an advanced power profile settings mode would likely be a tough sell. Exposing arbitrary user-defined profiles would also pose some challenges which it might be difficult to overcome.
If this change proposal does require UXD changes to GNOME, then I'd suggest reaching out to us in advance to discuss them.
Wouldn't it also be logical for UPower to replace power-profiles-daemon? UPower is already integrated into GNOME Settings while tuned is not, not having an additional dependency might be nicer and beneficial for other distributions which might not have a tuned package at all.
Greetings,
Jelle van der Waa _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Hi Allan,
Thank you for the comments.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:31 AM Allan Day aday@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Kate,
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:30 AM Kate Hsuan hpa@redhat.com wrote:
... By integrating power-profiles-daemon with tuned, the user can get extra features to finetune the system, and the basic feature provided by ppd can be used according to the user's demand. It also can reduce the efforts of the maintainer.
...
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
I just noticed that the change proposal contains the line:
"We expected that the user can set those profile, tuned provided through gnome-control-panel. To minimize the information to the user, the power panel would provide a simple and advanced mode to show the power profiles. If the users want to finetune the system, they can switch to the advanced mode themselves."
It's a bit unclear if this is a definite plan, a requirement, or more of a speculative ambition. However, I should probably be clear that from a GNOME design perspective, an advanced power profile settings mode would likely be a tough sell. Exposing arbitrary user-defined profiles would also pose some challenges which it might be difficult to overcome.
- Simple (Basic) mode is the original UX design of the power panel so we don't need to change or redesign it. - The advanced mode only shows the profile that tuned provides and the profile can be filtered based on the system architecture or platform model (Dell, Lenovo...etc). It is my thought and any kinds of ideas are welcome.
Since there are many kinds of profiles provided by tuned, for example, VM-specific profiles and profiles for Intel features...etc., that gives us more room to think about how the UI can be improved. In this proposal, I listed the probabilities of UX changes to show how we can propose a new UX for the power panel. If it is difficult to achieve, the advanced mode can be dropped, and seek for alternative solutions. :) For the short-term plan, we would like to address the integration with tuned. The best result of the first step is that power-profiles-daemon is replaced by tuned and all the applications, such as gnome, kde, sysprof...etc run correctly. Then, we will start to think about how the UX can be improved or an alternative solution to set up the advanced tuned profiles.
If this change proposal does require UXD changes to GNOME, then I'd suggest reaching out to us in advance to discuss them.
Okay. :)
Thanks,
Allan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 10:58 PM Kate Hsuan hpa@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Allan,
Thank you for the comments.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:31 AM Allan Day aday@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Kate,
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:30 AM Kate Hsuan hpa@redhat.com wrote:
... By integrating power-profiles-daemon with tuned, the user can get extra features to finetune the system, and the basic feature provided by ppd can be used according to the user's demand. It also can reduce the efforts of the maintainer.
...
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
I just noticed that the change proposal contains the line:
"We expected that the user can set those profile, tuned provided through gnome-control-panel. To minimize the information to the user, the power panel would provide a simple and advanced mode to show the power profiles. If the users want to finetune the system, they can switch to the advanced mode themselves."
It's a bit unclear if this is a definite plan, a requirement, or more of a speculative ambition. However, I should probably be clear that from a GNOME design perspective, an advanced power profile settings mode would likely be a tough sell. Exposing arbitrary user-defined profiles would also pose some challenges which it might be difficult to overcome.
- Simple (Basic) mode is the original UX design of the power panel so
we don't need to change or redesign it.
- The advanced mode only shows the profile that tuned provides and the
profile can be filtered based on the system architecture or platform model (Dell, Lenovo...etc). It is my thought and any kinds of ideas are welcome.
Since there are many kinds of profiles provided by tuned, for example, VM-specific profiles and profiles for Intel features...etc., that gives us more room to think about how the UI can be improved. In this proposal, I listed the probabilities of UX changes to show how we can propose a new UX for the power panel. If it is difficult to achieve, the advanced mode can be dropped, and seek for alternative solutions. :) For the short-term plan, we would like to address the integration with tuned. The best result of the first step is that power-profiles-daemon is replaced by tuned and all the applications, such as gnome, kde, sysprof...etc run correctly. Then, we will start to think about how the UX can be improved or an alternative solution to set up the advanced tuned profiles.
If this change proposal does require UXD changes to GNOME, then I'd suggest reaching out to us in advance to discuss them.
Okay. :)
I strongly recommend you reach out to the KDE folks as well. The Visual Design Group is a good starting point[1] for discussing the UX for tuned in KDE Plasma. A Matrix account is required to interact with most of the KDE folks, but you should already have one through chat.fedoraproject.org if you don't already have one from elsewhere.
I suspect many of your simple/advanced UX ideas will be fine, but need to be refined with the VDG to figure out how it should be done.
From the KDE side, we are not strictly speaking, married to the power-profiles-daemon concept. And the idea of having IHVs actually provide useful energy tuning profiles so that battery life can be further extended (thus supplanting tlp as well) is highly appealing.
[1]: https://matrix.to/#/#visualdesigngroup:kde.org
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
Hi Neal,
Already sent a message to them through Matrix.
Thank you :)
Hi Allan,
I submitted an issue to the gitlab. We could discuss it through the issue discussion. For the shorterm plan, I would like to focus on integration and make sure all the components work properly. Then, we start to think about the improvement of the user interface and the architecture. If we can do every in parallel, that would be great too :)
Thank you.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:12 PM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 10:58 PM Kate Hsuan hpa@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Allan,
Thank you for the comments.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:31 AM Allan Day aday@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Kate,
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:30 AM Kate Hsuan hpa@redhat.com wrote:
... By integrating power-profiles-daemon with tuned, the user can get extra features to finetune the system, and the basic feature provided by ppd can be used according to the user's demand. It also can reduce the efforts of the maintainer.
...
Moreover, the detailed change proposal can be found here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TunedReplacesPower-profiles-daemon
I just noticed that the change proposal contains the line:
"We expected that the user can set those profile, tuned provided through gnome-control-panel. To minimize the information to the user, the power panel would provide a simple and advanced mode to show the power profiles. If the users want to finetune the system, they can switch to the advanced mode themselves."
It's a bit unclear if this is a definite plan, a requirement, or more of a speculative ambition. However, I should probably be clear that from a GNOME design perspective, an advanced power profile settings mode would likely be a tough sell. Exposing arbitrary user-defined profiles would also pose some challenges which it might be difficult to overcome.
- Simple (Basic) mode is the original UX design of the power panel so
we don't need to change or redesign it.
- The advanced mode only shows the profile that tuned provides and the
profile can be filtered based on the system architecture or platform model (Dell, Lenovo...etc). It is my thought and any kinds of ideas are welcome.
Since there are many kinds of profiles provided by tuned, for example, VM-specific profiles and profiles for Intel features...etc., that gives us more room to think about how the UI can be improved. In this proposal, I listed the probabilities of UX changes to show how we can propose a new UX for the power panel. If it is difficult to achieve, the advanced mode can be dropped, and seek for alternative solutions. :) For the short-term plan, we would like to address the integration with tuned. The best result of the first step is that power-profiles-daemon is replaced by tuned and all the applications, such as gnome, kde, sysprof...etc run correctly. Then, we will start to think about how the UX can be improved or an alternative solution to set up the advanced tuned profiles.
If this change proposal does require UXD changes to GNOME, then I'd suggest reaching out to us in advance to discuss them.
Okay. :)
I strongly recommend you reach out to the KDE folks as well. The Visual Design Group is a good starting point[1] for discussing the UX for tuned in KDE Plasma. A Matrix account is required to interact with most of the KDE folks, but you should already have one through chat.fedoraproject.org if you don't already have one from elsewhere.
I suspect many of your simple/advanced UX ideas will be fine, but need to be refined with the VDG to figure out how it should be done.
From the KDE side, we are not strictly speaking, married to the power-profiles-daemon concept. And the idea of having IHVs actually provide useful energy tuning profiles so that battery life can be further extended (thus supplanting tlp as well) is highly appealing.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
-
Allan Day -
Jelle van der Waa -
Jonas Ådahl -
Kate Hsuan -
Neal Gompa -
Yanko Kaneti