Re: The ondemand CPUFreq code -- I hope the functionality stays

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> Personally, I prefer conservative, because it isn't as "jumpy", but I
> can see ondemand being necessary in a server environment where the
> several second lag time to peak performance would hurt response time
> when load is low.


jumpy is fine though; at least on the processors my employer makes
changing frequency is really really fast, so you get maximum savings by
switching often (you can switch down more aggressively if you know
you'll switch back up quickly). So switching often is a good policy if
you want both good response AND good power savings... 
I don't know about other cpu makers; my frequency switching machines are
all Intel.

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux