All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Cc: David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Chodorenko Michail <misha@one.by>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Celeron Core
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:24:15 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47939FDF.7070805@shaw.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1200856457.13649.29.camel@cinder.waste.org>

Matt Mackall wrote:
> Your usage of "overall power" here is wrong. Power is an instantaneous
> quantity (1/s) like velocity, and you are comparing it to energy which
> is not an instaneous quantity, more like distance.
> 
> If we throttle the velocity of a car from 100km/h to 50km/h, it'll
> obviously take longer for it travel a given distance. Now what will it
> mean when we ask about its "overall velocity" when it reaches its
> destination? We surely don't mean the distance travelled - that's not a
> velocity! We can perhaps talk about its average velocity, which will
> obviously be smaller.

You are right.. it should be that overall energy usage is higher with 
clock throttling.

> 
>> Real CPU clock throttling schemes like SpeedStep, PowerNow, etc. 
>> actually do increase performance per watt when they kick in.
> 
> That may be true. But the statement "throttling does not reduce power
> usage" remains false. And the statement "throttling reduces heat
> production but not power usage" remains physically impossible.

It reduces the rate of power usage (watts), however it will likely not 
decreate or even increase the energy usage (i.e. watt-hours) of any 
given computational task.

> 
> It might be true that "throttling increases energy usage per unit of
> computation relative to no power saving measures at all", but that is
> not incompatible with "throttling lets you run your laptop on battery
> longer than no power saving measures at all", which is often what people
> care about.
> 
> Voltage/frequency reduction is obviously a much better solution if it's
> available as reducing voltage reduces power usage quadratically rather
> than linearly. But beyond the quadratic/linear thing, the concept is the
> same: use less power and your battery lasts longer.

Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have 
tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or something, 
and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people have tasks that 
run and then the CPU idles - loading an email, displaying a web page, 
etc. Clock throttling will just make these tasks utilize the CPU for a 
longer time proportional to the amount clock throttling and therefore 
negate any gains in battery usage.

  reply	other threads:[~2008-01-20 19:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <fa.2Y+LplM9PCtpiAXzv/aJ3Pcnv4Y@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.OpXJDCw416yeXEvt0cwrupi/qS0@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]   ` <fa.sj34KNXkf9z/ZO3fVJ+CYcgcuCs@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]     ` <fa.qpK4b5H7lkLeIaPtbJKzKV46yFY@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]       ` <fa.WeBRuL3UPPVPESVzfopvVyNcAw4@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]         ` <fa.LZLUxfR64dAZFPtin9JNet7ieiY@ifi.uio.no>
2008-01-20 18:24           ` PROBLEM: Celeron Core Robert Hancock
2008-01-20 19:14             ` Matt Mackall
2008-01-20 19:24               ` Robert Hancock [this message]
2008-01-20 21:31                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-21  7:48               ` Daniel Barkalow
2008-01-20 19:16             ` Andi Kleen
     [not found] <fa.tHyDHqRNYFvp4N4SR4JtJRuqh0k@ifi.uio.no>
2008-01-21 23:59 ` Robert Hancock
2008-01-20 22:06 Tomasz Chmielewski
2008-01-20 22:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-21 10:11 ` Matthew Garrett
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-01-18 19:06 Chodorenko Michail
2008-01-18 21:11 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-19  0:27   ` Matt Mackall
2008-01-19  1:15     ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-19  4:10       ` Matt Mackall
2008-01-19  4:27         ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-19  4:40           ` Matt Mackall
2008-01-19  4:54             ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-20  4:35               ` David Newall
2008-01-20  5:13                 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-20  5:23                   ` David Newall
2008-01-20  5:42                     ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-20 20:53                     ` Lennart Sorensen
2008-01-20 11:18           ` Geert Uytterhoeven

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=47939FDF.7070805@shaw.ca \
    --to=hancockr@shaw.ca \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=davidn@davidnewall.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=misha@one.by \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.