From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] If a CPU gets onlined set the governor to the one that is run on other CPUs Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:33:21 -0500 Message-ID: <20061127173321.GA25763@redhat.com> References: <1164296237.3721.395.camel@queen.suse.de> <20061126222120.GB26600@redhat.com> <1164620871.4656.110.camel@queen.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1164620871.4656.110.camel@queen.suse.de> 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: Thomas Renninger Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Stefan Seyfried 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. (Typically I hear from the HPC folks "how do I turn this cpufreq thing off?") I'd rather we looked into merging conservative & ondemand, and have ondemand be tunable to not scale so frequently for such users. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk