[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080811071209.189b68c5@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:12:09 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.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, 11 Aug 2008 15:07:34 +0100
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
actually.. p4_clockmod is *NOT* downclocking the processor.. that's the
whole problem with it..
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.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