| 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: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:59:46 -0600 From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca> To: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Celeron Core Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >>> 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. We are talking about throttling (i.e. P4 clockmod) not CPU frequency scaling. Clock modulation does not reduce the clock speed, it just basically forces the CPU to halt on a certain duty cycle. If the CPU is already idle this has no effect and won't save any power. -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@...pamshaw.ca Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ -- 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