| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4793C5CA.5060100@wpkg.org> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:06:02 +0100 From: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org> To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Celeron Core >> Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have >> tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or something, >> and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people have tasks that >> run and then the CPU idles - loading an email, displaying a web page, >> etc. Clock throttling will just make these tasks utilize the CPU for a >> longer time proportional to the amount clock throttling and therefore >> negate any gains in battery usage. Aren't you forgetting about CPUfreq governors? Which mean: use the maximum CPU frequency when the system is busy, throttle down (or lower voltage) when the system is idle. So yes, throttling will save the battery. Besides, not all CPUs support power management (voltage control). > IMO clock throttling (as opposed to the reduction of the frequency of an idle > CPU) is only useful for preventing the CPU from overheating. And for reducing power on CPUs that can't do any power management, just throttling. For example, a server that doesn't crunch any numbers at night will certainly use less power when throttled. -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org -- 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