Re: [patch 2/2] x86: Manage ENERGY_PERF_BIAS based on cpufreqgovernor
From: Pavel Machek
Date: Sat Mar 06 2010 - 01:44:19 EST
On Fri 2010-03-05 22:49:09, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:13:30PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Fri 2010-03-05 20:55:22, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:40:29PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >
> > > > That can be only true if it does not give benefits period... AC and
> > > > battery power are quite different scenarios.
> > >
> > > No, they're not.
> > Yes, they are.
> > Would you care to elaborate? I may very well want top power on AC
> > power, and max powersavings on battery; most people do.
> You may want that. But power constraints aren't limited to battery, and
> being on battery doesn't inherently mean that you're power constrained.
> Mixing these concepts results in all kinds of issues.
That's of course true.
But if something gives so limited benefit that it does not make sense
to tweak between power constrained and not-power-constrained
environments (I used AC and battery as an example), it is useless.
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
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/