[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Etj3eu25cBuESoXdo3pMnJymFcicW9YN3LMn7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:36:47 +0100
From: Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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
2010/12/17 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> 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.
That depends to a large degree on architecture, chip technology node
and deployed user space
applications. I don't agree that race-to-idle is a good idea for
some/many combinations at least
for embedded systems. But of course race-to-idle is simpler, but not
necessarily giving the
lowest energy.
/Harald
--
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