From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.5 speedstep on P4Ms Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:29:00 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <1086798540.31338.6.camel@delerium.codemonkey.org.uk> References: <40C5F42D.1050107@cern.ch> <20040608153023.GS13782@poupinou.org> <40C6517E.1090708@cern.ch> <20040609154710.GA9482@dominikbrodowski.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040609154710.GA9482@dominikbrodowski.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: Bruno Ducrot , holbling@cpt.univ-mrs.fr, cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 16:47, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Hi Chris, > > > for 3): what you say sounds much better than my brutal hack, so i won't > > post it again. i'd definitely want to try to implement 2 cpufreq > > drivers, but i fear this is way beyond me at the moment and probably > > involves design choices i can't make. > > well, somebody _does_ have to do design choices... However, I'm not yet > convinced of the necessity of supporting throttling and frequency scaling on > the same system. Even more, under normal circumstances [i.e. idling works, > which it does on most systems], I see no _technical_ reason to do > throttling, or even non-temperature related _dynamic throttling_ like other > OSes do it. For those new to this list, there's some maths in the archives > which proves that you need more energy == battery power if you do > throttling for any given task... So it's something we need to discuss > during 2.7. I'm actually inclined to kill off p4-clockmod one day. It doesn't seem to do anything useful whatsoever. It certainly doesn't lower the temperature on my xeon. Dave