On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:49:26PM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > To save energy, the higher frequencies should be avoided and only used
> > when the application performance requirements can not be satisfied
> > otherwise (e.g. spread tasks across more cpus if possible).
>
> I argue this is untrue for any task where user waits for its
> completion with screen on. (And that's quite important subset).
>
> Lets take Nokia n900 as an example.
>
> (source http://wiki.maemo.org/N900_Hardware_Power_Consumption)
>
> Sleeping CPU: 2mA
> Screen on: 230mA
> CPU loaded: 250mA
>
> Now, lets believe your numbers and pretend system can operate at 33%
> of speed with 11% power consumption.
>
> Lets take task that takes 10 seconds on max frequency:
>
> ~ 10s * 470mA = 4700mAs
>
> You suggest running at 33% speed, instead; that means 30 seconds on
> low requency.
>
> CPU on low: 25mA (assumed).
>
> ~ 30s * 255mA = 7650mAs
>
> Hmm. So race to idle is good thing on Intel machines, and it is good
> thing on ARM design I have access to.
Race to idle doesn't mean that the screen goes off as well. Let's say
the screen stays on for 1 min and the CPU needs to be running for 10s
over this minute, in the first case you have:
10s & 250mA + 60s * 230mA = 16300mAs
in the second case you have:
30s * 25mA + 60s * 230mA = 14550mAs
That's a 1750mAs difference. There are of course other parts drawing
current but simple things like the above really make a difference in the
mobile space, both in terms of battery and thermal budget.
--
Catalin
--
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/
