On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:34:14PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Luis Henriques <luis.hen...@gmail.com> 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 able to do this. > > > > If both of these two statements are true (maybe they are not!), we should > > also have a mechanism to disable this code (either at runtime or compile > > time). > > You are correct, but I wonder why you would ever want a machine only
I warned: it was a silly question! :-) > running at 50% all the time. When it is busy, it's still slow, and > when it's not, it's still using power. We are thinking that states > other than 0 and 100 are not very useful. But this is not the final > diff. It will probably have some means of control eventually, until > then, it'd be nice if people evaluated if this meets their needs. I have only one concern: usually I use apmd with the '-C' flag in my laptop. _But_ sometimes I actually need to force the performance level to the lowest possible even with the CPU quite busy. I need to do this because of overheating. 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. This patch will probably just force me to seek for another solution for this problem. Running apm -L is not the best thing anyway... -- Luis
