[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070228065932.GA23678@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:59:32 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Adam Belay <abelay@...ell.com>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3]cpuidle take2: Core cpuidle infrastructure
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:47:55PM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> >I played with this a little, and got puzzled.
> >My quad core box used exactly the same amount of power whether the
> >'ladder' governer was loaded & in use or not. In both situations
> >it was exactly the same as a vanilla 2.6.20
> >
> >I'd have expected it to use more until I loaded up 'ladder' to bring it
> >on par featurewise with 2.6.20. What did I miss?
>
> Quad core what platform?
Glenwood
> How many C-states are supported in this platform?
Garg, only C1. That explains a lot.
> Current ladder is mostly like Policy embedded in ACPI today. But, Adam
> has
> been working on different policies that we want to experiment with as we
> go along.
ok.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists