[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090708174741.GA23487@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:47:41 +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 07:41:23PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
> > 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?
>
> The flawed assumption is that running at doubled frequency halves the
> completion time.
> On cpus that can change the core speed without impacting the
> memory-cache bandwidth
> (i.e. the Pentium M), workloads that access lot of memory go at the
> same speed at
> maximum and minimum frequency.
> Now I see new CPUs that can flush their cache during deep idle states (Atoms),
> this aggravates the aforementioned problem, rendering the high
> frequency state much less appetible.
Do you have numbers to support this? What effect does the ramping up
have on user-visible latency?
--
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