Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754581AbZGJMU1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:20:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750889AbZGJMUO (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:20:14 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:41426 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750861AbZGJMUN (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:20:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:34:47 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Corrado Zoccolo Cc: Matthew Garrett , Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: Introduces stepped frequency increase Message-ID: <20090709233447.GA1770@ucw.cz> References: <200907081556.34682.czoccolo@gmail.com> <20090708161052.GA20951@srcf.ucam.org> <4e5e476b0907081041g5561a8b2s1bc393809a09b78b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4e5e476b0907081041g5561a8b2s1bc393809a09b78b@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1666 Lines: 35 On Wed 2009-07-08 19:41:23, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Matthew Garrett 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 -- 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/