[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292599007.2266.290.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:16:47 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>
Cc: Harald Gustafsson <harald.gustafsson@...csson.com>,
Dario Faggioli <faggioli@...dalf.sssup.it>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
Michael Trimarchi <trimarchi@...is.sssup.it>,
Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Added runqueue clock normalized with cpufreq
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 16:06 +0100, Harald Gustafsson wrote:
> 2010/12/17 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> > This is all assuming lowering the frequency is sensible to begin with in
> > the first place... but that's all part of the CPUfreq governor, it needs
> > to find a way to lower energy usage while conforming to the system
> > constraints.
>
> Yes, I and you have already suggested the safe way to not lower it below
> the total dl bandwidth. But for softer use cases it might be possible to
> e.g. exclude threads with longer periods than cpufreq change periods in the
> minimum frequency.
I was more hinting at the fact that CPUfreq is at best a controversial
approach to power savings. I much prefer the whole race-to-idle
approach, its much simpler.
--
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