| 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: <20080121101147.GB2785@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:11:48 +0000 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Celeron Core On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 11:06:02PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > 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). Voltage scaling isn't the only component of CPU power management. Intels have supported low power states on idle since the Pentium 90 (Cyrix had "Suspend on HALT" earlier than that), which means that an idle processor takes less power than one executing code. On anything even vaguely modern, throttling will not save you any significant power compared to the C state support. > For example, a server that doesn't crunch any numbers at night will > certainly use less power when throttled. Have you got benchmark figures for this? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.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