[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090220174148.GB9995@codemonkey.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:41:48 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>
To: Scott James Remnant <scott@...onical.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Change link order of x86 cpufreq modules
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:39:35PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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.
This is one reason why in .30 the user interface for p4-clockmod is disabled.
It'll only get throttled when ACPI goes into OMG I'M OVERHEATING mode,
and ramp back up once it cools off.
p4-clockmod and ondemand is a recipe for fail.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--
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