From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joseph Pingenot Subject: Re: enhanced intel speedstep feature was Re: speedstep-centrino on dothan Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:34:14 -0500 Message-ID: <20050707213414.GF16702@digitasaru.net> References: <20050706112202.33d63d4d@horst.morte.male> <42CC37FD.5040708@tmr.com> <20050706211159.GF27630@redhat.com> <20050706235557.0c122d33@horst.morte.male> <20050707220027.413343d4@horst.morte.male> <20050707200648.GA29142@redhat.com> <20050707222225.5b3113e0@horst.morte.male> <20050707205117.GB10635@digitasaru.net> <20050707210823.GA24774@isilmar.linta.de> Reply-To: trelane@digitasaru.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050707210823.GA24774@isilmar.linta.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@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: st3@riseup.net, Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk >From Dominik Brodowski on Thursday, 07 July, 2005: >On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:51:17PM -0500, Joseph Pingenot wrote: >> >Just a latest question: can be p4-clockmod used together with >> >speedstep-centrino? If not, would it make any sense to patch >> >speedstep-centrino to use this feature too? >> I'm a little confused. How is this different from the ACPI CPU throttling >> states (/proc/acpi/processor/CPUn/limit to set, throttling to see all >> T-states available)? >T-states _tend_ to be utilized using chipset logic, while p4-clockmod is >done in-CPU. >> On my 1.5-year-old Pentium-M, frequency scaling and T-states are different >> beasties, and act entirely differently. I'm currently in the process of >> rewriting my governor's brain to deal with the two more intelligently. >In your case, I would care about throttling. In very most cases it actually >increases energy consumption, as the state being entered is technically the >same to ACPI C2 (IIRC), so it is only "forced" idling and only useful if >"forced" idling is needed to not need active cooling. Why would this cause more energy consumption? -Joseph -- trelane@digitasaru.net-------------------------------------------------- Graduate student in physics, Free Software developer.