| 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, 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