From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: writing a cpufreq driver Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:31:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20060923153157.GS4945@poupinou.org> References: <45140FFC.1060305@slagter.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45140FFC.1060305@slagter.name> 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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Erik Slagter Cc: Cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Erik Slagter wrote: > > I'm now sure the southbridge is throttling the processor... > > I was always told that throttling the processor doesn't yield any > powersaving? And that is exactly what my last two motherboards show. In fact this depend if frequency and 'performance for a given task' is linear or not. On older systems (as the one from the OP) there is an huge performance penalty (external L2 cache if even there is one) when running at full. Throttling the processor can then achieve power saving. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.