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  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:	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:27:50 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <>
To:	Matt Mackall <>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <>,
	Chodorenko Michail <>,
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Celeron Core

> So while throttling may be less efficient in terms of watt seconds used
> to compile something than running at full speed, it is incorrect to say
> it uses less power. One machine running for an hour throttled to 50%
> uses less power (and therefore less battery and cooling) than another
> running at full speed for that same hour.

Not for the same unit of work. If you just run endless loops you 
might be true, but most systems don't do that. 

In terms of laptops (or rather in most other systems too) you usually care 
about battery life time while the system is mostly idling (waiting
for your key strokes etc.). In this case enabling throttling
as a cpufreq driver will not make your battery last longer.

Also skipping the clocks does not actually safe all very much power
compared to the other measures C-states or speedstep do (like dropping voltage) 

This means enabling it will likely make your laptop battery last shorter.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists