Re: [PATCH 1/3] Added runqueue clock normalized with cpufreq

[Harald Gustafsson]

2010/12/17 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I was more hinting at the fact that CPUfreq is at best a controversial
> approach to power savings. I much prefer the whole race-to-idle
> approach, its much simpler.

That depends to a large degree on architecture, chip technology node
and deployed user space
applications. I don't agree that race-to-idle is a good idea for
some/many combinations at least
for embedded systems. But of course race-to-idle is simpler, but not
necessarily giving the
lowest energy.

/Harald
--
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/