linux-kernel - Re: cpufreq doesn't seem to work in Intel Q9300

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:07:34 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	S K <nospamnoham@...il.com>, Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@...el.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpufreq doesn't seem to work in Intel Q9300

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 05:02:06PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> This statement is only true for HPC environments and when you measure 
> Watts per work done.
> 
> But if you have some desktop or server with a load that is determined by 
> when it gets used, then p4-clockmod can actually save energy when the 
> computer is not under high load or even idle.
> 
> Or do I miss anything?

On modern hardware, the C states will win you more than downclocking the 
processor would.

-- 
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/