On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:31, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050802 03:54]: > > > I need to ask you why you think limiting the maximum Hz is a bad idea? On > > a laptop, say we have set the powersave governor, we have already told > > the kernel we are interested in maximising power saving at the expense of > > performance. Would it not be appropriate for this to be linked in a way > > that sets maximum Hz to some value that maximises power save (whatever > > that value is) at that time? > > With dyntick the system will run at max HZ only when busy. It is possible > that cutting down max HZ might cause some savings while busy, but I would > assume the savings are minimal. > > I personally prefer to have the performance available when needed, and > max savings while idle.
That's what I felt too but wasn't sure about the power saving. However what you say makes complete sense; if the machine is loaded then the extra power overhead of 1000 vs 100 ticks is meaningless, but throughput may be of concern. However I managed to get it booted on my p4 at home and while I'm using it under load I find it rarely gets to 1000Hz during realistic loads. I'll be posting a fresh patch shortly with the last few cleanups I could find, that I'm now running on 2.6.13-rc5. Cheers, Con - 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/
