From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759622AbZBTRmK (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:42:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753507AbZBTRlz (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:41:55 -0500 Received: from testure.choralone.org ([194.9.77.134]:50082 "EHLO testure.choralone.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753008AbZBTRly (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:41:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:41:48 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: Scott James Remnant Cc: Matthew Garrett , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Change link order of x86 cpufreq modules Message-ID: <20090220174148.GB9995@codemonkey.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Scott James Remnant , Matthew Garrett , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org References: <20090218182822.GA19902@srcf.ucam.org> <20090218183137.GD26802@elte.hu> <20090218183641.GA20203@srcf.ucam.org> <1235150992.6467.66.camel@quest> <20090220173637.GA1985@srcf.ucam.org> <1235151575.6467.68.camel@quest> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1235151575.6467.68.camel@quest> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:39:35PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 17:36 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:29:52PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > > > In fact, we've noticed severe regressions with p4-clockmod over simply > > > having no scaling driver at all - and are not going to built it into our > > > kernels. > > > > It makes sense to have p4-clockmod from a thermal management > > perspective. We should probably bump its transition latency to more than > > 10ms to prevent ondemand binding to it. > > > If that's possible; that'd be good. > > The trouble with it is that it never seems to bring the CPU anywhere > near maximum performance. This is one reason why in .30 the user interface for p4-clockmod is disabled. It'll only get throttled when ACPI goes into OMG I'M OVERHEATING mode, and ramp back up once it cools off. p4-clockmod and ondemand is a recipe for fail. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk