[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1235151575.6467.68.camel@quest>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:39:35 +0000
From: Scott James Remnant <scott@...onical.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, davej@...emonkey.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Change link order of x86 cpufreq modules
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 17:36 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:29:52PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > In fact, we've noticed severe regressions with p4-clockmod over simply
> > having no scaling driver at all - and are not going to built it into our
> > kernels.
>
> It makes sense to have p4-clockmod from a thermal management
> perspective. We should probably bump its transition latency to more than
> 10ms to prevent ondemand binding to it.
>
If that's possible; that'd be good.
The trouble with it is that it never seems to bring the CPU anywhere
near maximum performance.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@...onical.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists