Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 07:29:57AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Rafael Sadowski <rafael@sizeofvoid.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon Jun 02, 2025 at 05:37:00PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 03:22:59PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > > > This introduces a helper function for hw.perfpolicy that allows more
> > > > > machine specific policies to be set.
> > > > > 
> > > > > On my laptop, there's also a fan policy. This affects performance, but
> > > > > it's not really related to the existing hw.setperf mechanism. For 
> > > > > example, a "silent" fan setting and "high" CPU setting is reasonable.
> > > > > Exactly what I want, in fact.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fortunately, perfpolicy takes a string, which makes it flexible.
> > > > > This uses two new optional functions to parse and append the policy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > hw.perfpolicy=silent,auto
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Do we really need to combine them? Why don't have dedicated
> > > > hw.fanpolicy?
> > > > 
> > 
> > It continues to be very weird to demand more "root has to do manual fiddling"
> > in a subsystem which advertises itself as being all about automated management.
> > 
> > How many people will set these control knobs?  Will it be 3 people, or will
> > it be 4 people?  Most people want their machine to be as fast as possible.
> 
> While I want a machine that is as fast as possible I also want it to be
> quiet. On some machines you need to twiddle with these knobs or hack the
> kernel to get a system that works optimal for the user. 

But those knobs don't exist.

The argument here is to such new knobs.