I like this one better. Slow down the poll interval just a little so it's
not so hysterical, but also go straight to 100. If you need CPU, you need
CPU. It still backs down slowly, but that's just to prevent getting
caught in slow mode again. It also pays attention to per-core load, much
be
> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:32:26 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Ted Unangst
>
> I like this one better. Slow down the poll interval just a little so it's
> not so hysterical, but also go straight to 100. If you need CPU, you need
> CPU. It still backs down slowly, but that's just to prevent getting
>
Probably, a silly question, but here it goes:
With this patch, I will not be able to set the perflevel to, say, 50% and
keep the system using that performance level forever. Is this correct?
I guess that with current apmd we are able to do this.
If both of these two statements are true (maybe th
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Luis Henriques
wrote:
> Probably, a silly question, but here it goes:
>
> With this patch, I will not be able to set the perflevel to, say, 50% and
> keep the system using that performance level forever. Is this correct?
> I guess that with current apmd we are abl
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:34:14PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Luis Henriques wrote:
> > Probably, a silly question, but here it goes:
> >
> > With this patch, I will not be able to set the perflevel to, say, 50% and
> > keep the system using that performance level
> For example, if I am compiling the kernel, my laptop will overheat and
> shutdown. So, I need to run apm -L in order to keep the temperature
> lower.
Balony. What you are facing is that the acpi throttling code is not
handling your laptop fast enough. It is unrelated to the problem that
tedu
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:34:14PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Luis Henriques
> wrote:
> > Probably, a silly question, but here it goes:
> >
> > With this patch, I will not be able to set the perflevel to, say, 50% and
> > keep the system using that performance lev
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > For example, if I am compiling the kernel, my laptop will overheat and
> > shutdown. So, I need to run apm -L in order to keep the temperature
> > lower.
>
> Balony. What you are facing is that the acpi throttling code is not
> h
On 2010 Jun 30 (Wed) at 22:25:45 +0100 (+0100), Luis Henriques wrote:
:Eventually there are usage scenarios where setting the maximum
:performance to 50% (or whatever value) may make sense -- if you want to
:save some power, for example.
It doesn't really save any power. I've done tests while doi
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > For example, if I am compiling the kernel, my laptop will overheat and
> > > shutdown. So, I need to run apm -L in order to keep the temperature
> > > lower.
> >
> > Balony. What you are facing is that the acpi throttling cod
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 04:08:17PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Eventually there are usage scenarios where setting the maximum
> > performance to 50% (or whatever value) may make sense -- if you want to
> > save some power, for example. Anyway, I was just trying to make sure
> > everyone unders
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:44:46PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
> On 2010 Jun 30 (Wed) at 22:25:45 +0100 (+0100), Luis Henriques wrote:
> :Eventually there are usage scenarios where setting the maximum
> :performance to 50% (or whatever value) may make sense -- if you want to
> :save some power, for
On Wednesday, June 30, Darrin Chandler wrote:
>
> What you're saying is true, but that's not the only use case. Streaming
> media may not benefit from 100% cpu but may not be able to work properly
> at 0%. The same goes for other common tasks as well. Running at 30% or
> 50% will indeed save power
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:32:26PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> I like this one better. Slow down the poll interval just a little so
> it's not so hysterical, but also go straight to 100. If you need CPU,
> you need CPU. It still backs down slowly, but that's just to prevent
> getting caught in s
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:59:00PM -0600, Tobias Weingartner wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> >
> > What you're saying is true, but that's not the only use case. Streaming
> > media may not benefit from 100% cpu but may not be able to work properly
> > at 0%. The same goes
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:34:14PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Luis Henriques
> wrote:
> > Probably, a silly question, but here it goes:
> >
> > With this patch, I will not be able to set the perflevel to, say, 50% and
> > keep the system using that performance lev
16 matches
Mail list logo
