Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756601AbYATWYY (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:24:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755807AbYATWYO (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:24:14 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:48548 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755258AbYATWYN (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:24:13 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Celeron Core Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:26:36 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: LKML References: <4793C5CA.5060100@wpkg.org> In-Reply-To: <4793C5CA.5060100@wpkg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801202326.37030.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1836 Lines: 43 On Sunday, 20 of January 2008, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > >> Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have > >> tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or something, > >> and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people have tasks that > >> run and then the CPU idles - loading an email, displaying a web page, > >> etc. Clock throttling will just make these tasks utilize the CPU for a > >> longer time proportional to the amount clock throttling and therefore > >> negate any gains in battery usage. > > Aren't you forgetting about CPUfreq governors? Which mean: use the > maximum CPU frequency when the system is busy, throttle down (or lower > voltage) when the system is idle. > > So yes, throttling will save the battery. In the relevant documentation "throttling" usually means "the reduction of the frequency of a CPU that is not idle" in which case it won't (at least on the average). > Besides, not all CPUs support power management (voltage control). > > > > IMO clock throttling (as opposed to the reduction of the frequency of an idle > > CPU) is only useful for preventing the CPU from overheating. > > And for reducing power on CPUs that can't do any power management, just > throttling. > > For example, a server that doesn't crunch any numbers at night will > certainly use less power when throttled. You can't use less power, you only can use less energy. :-) Anyway, that's "the reduction of the frequency of an idle CPU" mentioned above and it makes sense in the majority of cases. Greetings, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/