linux-kernel - Re: The ondemand CPUFreq code -- I hope the functionality stays

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:24:04 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Thomas Tuttle <thinkinginbinary@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: The ondemand CPUFreq code -- I hope the functionality stays

> 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

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/