| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090708161052.GA20951@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:10:52 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: Introduces stepped frequency increase On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:56:33PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > The patch introduces a new sysfs tunable cpufreq/ondemand/freq_step, > as found in conservative governor, to chose the frequency increase step, > expressed as percentage (default = 100 is previous behaviour). > > This allows fine tuning powersaving on mobile CPUs, since smaller steps will allow to: > * absorb punctual load spikes > * stabilize at the needed frequency, without passing for more power consuming states, and Is this a measured powersaving? The ondemand model is based on the assumption that the idle state is disproportionately lower in power than any running state, and therefore it's more sensible to run flat out for short periods of time than run at half speed for longer. Is this inherently flawed, or is it an artifact of differences in your processor design? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.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