Re: [PATCH] cpufreq_ondemand

[Bruno Ducrot]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:35:49AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Alexander Clouter wrote:
> >>3. (major) the scaling up and down of the cpufreq is now smoother.  I 
> >>found 
> >	it really nasty that if it tripped < 20% idle time that the freq was 
> >	set to 100%.  This code smoothly increases the cpufreq as well as 
> >	doing a better job of decreasing it too
> 
> I'd much prefer it shot up to 100% or else every time the cpu usage went 
> up there'd be an obvious lag till the machine ran at it's capable speed. 
>  I very much doubt the small amount of time it spent at 100% speed with 
> the default design would decrease the battery life significantly as well.
> 

I'm almost ok with your words, but the amd64 do have unacceptable
latency between min and max freq transition, due to the step-by-step
requirements (200MHz IIRC).
Alexander's governor may be then OK for those kind of processors.

-- 
Bruno Ducrot

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/