On 04/15/2013 02:04 PM, Alex Shi wrote: > On 04/14/2013 11:59 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 09:28:50AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >>> >> Even some scenario the total energy cost more, at least the avg watts >>> >> dropped in that scenarios. >> > >> > Ok, what's wrong with x = 32 then? So basically if you're looking at >> > avg watts, you don't want to have more than 16 threads, otherwise >> > powersaving sucks on that particular uarch and platform. Can you say >> > that for all platforms out there? > The cpu freq boost make the avg watts higher with x = 32, and also make > higher power efficiency. We can disable cpu freq boost for this if we > want lower power consumption all time. > But for my understanding, the power efficient is better way to save power.
BTW, lowest p-state, no freq boost and plus this powersaving policy will give the lowest power consumption. And I need to say again. the powersaving policy just effect on system under utilisation. when system goes busy, it won't has effect. performance oriented policy will take over balance behaviour. -- Thanks Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/