From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ashley Pittman Subject: Re: [PATCH] If a CPU gets onlined set the governor to the one that is run on other CPUs Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:40:56 +0000 Message-ID: <1164710457.22971.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1164296237.3721.395.camel@queen.suse.de> <20061126222120.GB26600@redhat.com> <1164620871.4656.110.camel@queen.suse.de> <20061127173321.GA25763@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20061127173321.GA25763@redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cpufreq-bounces@lists.linux.org.uk Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Dave Jones Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Stefan Seyfried On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 12:33 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:47:51AM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > > Thinking about x86 may get 16/32/64 CPU sockets the next years, it may > > be convenient for very specific guys to run some nodes at highest > > performance to even avoid some 2% performance regression on database > > nodes while others are run with ondemand. > > For the HPC folks I've spoken with, this doesn't seem likely. > If they care at all about that 2% (which they do), they'll want that > out of every CPU, and not leave anything idle. With the onset of cpusets this assertion possibly won't hold true for much longer however, we would be willing to only get 100% out of the cpu's which have HPC jobs assigned to then. Ashley,