From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751611Ab0CFGoO (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Mar 2010 01:44:14 -0500 Received: from ksp.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.206]:40115 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750821Ab0CFGoJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Mar 2010 01:44:09 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:43:59 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Matthew Garrett Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Randy Dunlap , Ingo Molnar , H Peter Anvin , Thomas Gleixner , Len Brown , Dave Jones , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on cpufreq governor Message-ID: <20100306064359.GC28759@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20100303000849.278509000@intel.com> <4B8DADB9.1040302@xenotime.net> <20100303215453.GG2579@ucw.cz> <1267662469.16916.1020.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20100305091949.GA31554@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <7C53B33EE871F14797C999838AA8B5A914ACD58C@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <20100305204029.GB20554@elf.ucw.cz> <20100305205522.GA15489@srcf.ucam.org> <20100305211329.GC20554@elf.ucw.cz> <20100305224909.GA21853@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100305224909.GA21853@srcf.ucam.org> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 2010-03-05 22:49:09, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:13:30PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2010-03-05 20:55:22, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:40:29PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > That can be only true if it does not give benefits period... AC and > > > > battery power are quite different scenarios. > > > > > > No, they're not. > > > > Yes, they are. > > > > Would you care to elaborate? I may very well want top power on AC > > power, and max powersavings on battery; most people do. > > You may want that. But power constraints aren't limited to battery, and > being on battery doesn't inherently mean that you're power constrained. > Mixing these concepts results in all kinds of issues. That's of course true. But if something gives so limited benefit that it does not make sense to tweak between power constrained and not-power-constrained environments (I used AC and battery as an example), it is useless. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html