[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080811193316.GA16631@isilmar.linta.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:33:17 +0200
From: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.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
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 07:11:28AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 1) when the cpu is idle (as in "idle loop C states/hlt"; p4_clockmod
> doesn't mean anything.. the clock is stopped not just skipped.
> 2) when the cpu is executing code (eg non-idle), it takes more power
> for a unit of time than it takes when it's idle
This statement might be true, but might also be wrong:
a) on systems where only C1 is exported, p4-clockmod most often
equals the state the CPU is in when in C1[*], so we're in a
win-win, or lose-lose situation.
b) IIRC 50% throttling is not "execute-one-statement
skip-one-statement execute-one-statement, etc." but instead
work for N us, skip for N us, work for N us, etc. Therefore,
the situation is a bit more compilcated.
Still, I agree that p4-clockmod is useful mostly in corner cases (and for
developing the cpufreq infrastructure in the first case, but that's another
story)
[*] or C2 even?
Best,
Dominik
--
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