[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1183762229.2774.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
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