From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: Introduces stepped frequency increase
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:34:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090709233447.GA1770@ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4e5e476b0907081041g5561a8b2s1bc393809a09b78b@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 2009-07-08 19:41:23, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Matthew Garrett<mjg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:56:33PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> >> The patch introduces a new sysfs tunable cpufreq/ondemand/freq_step,
> >> as found in conservative governor, to chose the frequency increase step,
> >> expressed as percentage (default = 100 is previous behaviour).
> >>
> >> This allows fine tuning powersaving on mobile CPUs, since smaller steps will allow to:
> >> * absorb punctual load spikes
> >> * stabilize at the needed frequency, without passing for more power consuming states, and
> >
> > Is this a measured powersaving? The ondemand model is based on the
> > assumption that the idle state is disproportionately lower in power than
> > any running state, and therefore it's more sensible to run flat out for
> > short periods of time than run at half speed for longer. Is this
> > inherently flawed, or is it an artifact of differences in your processor
> > design?
Different processors behave differently -- that assumption is wrong at
least for old athlon64s... Those have power-hungry idle states, and 4x
power consumption at 2x frequency....
(Original Intel speedstep was similar iirc).
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-10 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-08 13:56 Corrado Zoccolo
2009-07-08 14:18 ` Michael S. Zick
2009-07-08 17:45 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-07-08 16:10 ` Matthew Garrett
2009-07-08 16:33 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-07-08 18:05 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-07-08 17:41 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-07-08 17:47 ` Matthew Garrett
2009-07-14 14:37 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-07-09 23:34 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2009-07-14 14:44 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-07-14 14:59 ` Matthew Garrett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090709233447.GA1770@ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome