From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161115AbWG1JYP (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:24:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161114AbWG1JYN (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:24:13 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:21437 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161113AbWG1JYL (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:24:11 -0400 Subject: Re: The ondemand CPUFreq code -- I hope the functionality stays From: Arjan van de Ven To: Thomas Tuttle Cc: LKML In-Reply-To: <20060728024334.GA12142@phoenix> References: <200607272104.24088.diablod3@gmail.com> <20060728024334.GA12142@phoenix> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel International BV Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:24:04 +0200 Message-Id: <1154078644.3117.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Personally, I prefer conservative, because it isn't as "jumpy", but I > can see ondemand being necessary in a server environment where the > several second lag time to peak performance would hurt response time > when load is low. jumpy is fine though; at least on the processors my employer makes changing frequency is really really fast, so you get maximum savings by switching often (you can switch down more aggressively if you know you'll switch back up quickly). So switching often is a good policy if you want both good response AND good power savings... I don't know about other cpu makers; my frequency switching machines are all Intel. -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com