| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:50:29 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de> Cc: DervishD <lkml@...vishd.net>, Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Question about cpufreq governors On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 23:54 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jul 6 2007 22:50, DervishD wrote: > > > > What I want to know is if I can choose "ondemand" governor instead > >of the recommended for AMD64, namely the "conservative" governor, since > >I will be switching between those two frequencies. I haven't found any > >information about my CPU regarding latency when switching between > >frequencies, so I don't know if I will be gaining anything using the > >"conservative" governor. > > > > Which governor is better suited for a CPU with only two fid's, > >"ondemand" or "conservative"? > > Depends on what you want. ondemand instantly switches when there is > something/nothing to do, while conservative uses a threshold (modeled upon > latency). for power saving, the ondemand behavior is better in general. However if you have a cpu that switches frequency very slowly, you may be better to not go as high quickly because going back down is then burning more power than needed potentially... - 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