From: Andre Eisenbach <int2str@gmail.com>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Clouter <alex-kernel@digriz.org.uk>,
cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq_ondemand
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:03:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f800d9f04101922031be5cfe8@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4172F3C5.8090604@kolivas.org>
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:35:49 +1000, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> I'd much prefer it shot up to 100% or else every time the cpu usage went
> up there'd be an obvious lag till the machine ran at it's capable speed.
> I very much doubt the small amount of time it spent at 100% speed with
> the default design would decrease the battery life significantly as well.
I like Alexanders idea better and will give it a good try. If the
speed steps down slowly but shoots up 100% quickly (as it is right
now), even a small task (like opening a folder, or scrolling down in a
document) will cause a tiny spike to 100% which takes a while to go
back down. The result is that the CPU spends most of it's time at 100%
or calming down. I wrote a small test program on my notebook which
confirms this.
It's either or. Either you go up AND down slowly (which I would
prefer), or you go up and down immediately. But spiking up and slowly
going back down is not a good combo.
Alex has my vote, even so I have to give if some more testing.
Cheers,
Andre
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andre Eisenbach <int2str@gmail.com>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: Alexander Clouter <alex-kernel@digriz.org.uk>,
venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq_ondemand
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:03:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f800d9f04101922031be5cfe8@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4172F3C5.8090604@kolivas.org>
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:35:49 +1000, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> I'd much prefer it shot up to 100% or else every time the cpu usage went
> up there'd be an obvious lag till the machine ran at it's capable speed.
> I very much doubt the small amount of time it spent at 100% speed with
> the default design would decrease the battery life significantly as well.
I like Alexanders idea better and will give it a good try. If the
speed steps down slowly but shoots up 100% quickly (as it is right
now), even a small task (like opening a folder, or scrolling down in a
document) will cause a tiny spike to 100% which takes a while to go
back down. The result is that the CPU spends most of it's time at 100%
or calming down. I wrote a small test program on my notebook which
confirms this.
It's either or. Either you go up AND down slowly (which I would
prefer), or you go up and down immediately. But spiking up and slowly
going back down is not a good combo.
Alex has my vote, even so I have to give if some more testing.
Cheers,
Andre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-20 5:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-17 22:29 [PATCH] cpufreq_ondemand Alexander Clouter
2004-10-17 22:29 ` Alexander Clouter
2004-10-17 22:35 ` Con Kolivas
2004-10-17 22:35 ` Con Kolivas
2004-10-17 22:44 ` Alexander Clouter
2004-10-17 22:44 ` Alexander Clouter
2004-10-19 18:22 ` Bruno Ducrot
2004-10-20 5:03 ` Andre Eisenbach [this message]
2004-10-20 5:03 ` Andre Eisenbach
2004-10-20 7:35 ` Len Brown
2004-10-20 7:35 ` Len Brown
2004-10-20 14:30 ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-10-20 21:03 ` Len Brown
2004-10-20 21:18 ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-10-17 22:45 ` Nebojsa Trpkovic
2004-10-18 7:27 ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-10-18 7:20 ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-10-18 7:20 ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-10-18 8:12 ` Mattia Dongili
2004-10-18 8:12 ` Mattia Dongili
2004-10-18 8:25 ` Alexander Clouter
2004-10-18 8:25 ` Alexander Clouter
2004-10-18 8:59 ` Dominik Brodowski
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-18 4:56 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2004-10-18 4:56 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2004-10-18 8:39 ` Alexander Clouter
2004-10-18 8:39 ` Alexander Clouter
2004-10-18 8:54 ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-10-19 5:06 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-10-19 5:06 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-10-18 22:48 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2004-10-18 22:48 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2004-10-18 23:18 ` Alexander Clouter
2004-10-18 23:18 ` Alexander Clouter
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=7f800d9f04101922031be5cfe8@mail.gmail.com \
--to=int2str@gmail.com \
--cc=alex-kernel@digriz.org.uk \
--cc=cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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.