[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100305224909.GA21853@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:49:09 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on cpufreq
governor
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:13:30PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2010-03-05 20:55:22, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:40:29PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > That can be only true if it does not give benefits period... AC and
> > > battery power are quite different scenarios.
> >
> > No, they're not.
>
> Yes, they are.
>
> Would you care to elaborate? I may very well want top power on AC
> power, and max powersavings on battery; most people do.
You may want that. But power constraints aren't limited to battery, and
being on battery doesn't inherently mean that you're power constrained.
Mixing these concepts results in all kinds of issues.
--
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