From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Status of X86_P4_CLOCKMOD? Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:22:01 +0100 Message-ID: <200602282322.03316.ak@suse.de> References: <20060222024438.GI20204@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <20060228213428.GA31044@isilmar.linta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dtor_core@ameritech.net Cc: Matt Mackall , Dave Jones , Adrian Bunk , davej@codemonkey.org.uk, Zwane Mwaikambo , Samuel Masham , Jan Engelhardt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk On Tuesday 28 February 2006 22:39, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 2/28/06, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 03:26:32PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > > So even if the battery lasts longer, you don't have anything of it, 'cause > > > > the CPU can even compute _less_ in this longer time-span. Remember that > > > > idling doesn't count... > > > > > > Which is different from other power-saving modes how? If it means I > > > can read my email longer on the plane, it's a power-saving mode. > > > > But you can't... [*] > ... > > [*] unless the idling algorithm is broken and does not enter C2-type idle > > states. > > Or box does not support anything but C1. There are quite advanced forms of C1 around. And I would expect even old style dumb C1 to save more than throttling. -Andi