From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Johannes Stezenbach <js@linuxtv.org>
Subject: Re: Status of X86_P4_CLOCKMOD?
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:05:19 +0100
Message-ID: <20060225130519.GC8698@linuxtv.org>
References: <20060214152218.GI10701@stusta.de> <20060223204110.GE6213@redhat.com> <20060225015722.GC8132@linuxtv.org> <200602250527.03493.ak@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S932700AbWBYNFV@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200602250527.03493.ak@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <cpufreq.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net>, davej@codemonkey.org.uk, Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@commfireservices.com>, Samuel Masham <samuel.masham@gmail.com>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 25 February 2006 02:57, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > P4 clockmod certainly sucks compared to Speedstep,
> > but IMHO it is still potentially useful for the average
> > desktop PC user (at least those many who let their PCs
> > run 24/7, but 90% idle and unused).
> 
> I don't think so no. The latencies make it unusable.

I tried to explain that I think one can use it in a way
so the latencies are not a big issue. One must
just accept that it needs different policy than
Speedstep etc.


Johannes