cpufreq Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Johannes Stezenbach <js@linuxtv.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net>,
	davej@codemonkey.org.uk,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@commfireservices.com>,
	Samuel Masham <samuel.masham@gmail.com>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: Status of X86_P4_CLOCKMOD?
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:28:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060225132820.GA13413@isilmar.linta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060225125326.GJ3674@stusta.de>

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 01:53:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Doesn't less heat imply less power consumption?
> > 
> > Not in this case no.
> >...
> 
> Sorry for the dumb question, but how could this work physically?
> 
> If a computer produces less heat with the same power consumption, what 
> happens with the other energy?

No. Let's do the math (again), and (again) for the actual values of an Intel
Pentium(R) M Processor, 1400 MHz @ 1.484 V, even though the same rules of
physics, logic and mathematics apply to _all_ processors.

Power consumption in idle state C2 (Stop-Grant state)	 7.3 W
Power consumption when "skipping instructions"
	because of throttling (Stop-Grant state)	 7.3 W

Power consumption when doing work			22.0 W


This means that if the processor idle percentage is _larger_ than (1 -
throttling rate), throttling has no effect at all.


Now, let's assume there is some work for the CPU to do which keeps it busy
for one second @ 1.4 GHz. How much energy is needed to get this work done?

0% throttling:		22 Ws	(1s)
25% throttling:		24 Ws	(1.3s)
50% throttling:		29 Ws	(2s)
75% throttling:		44 Ws	(4s)


Now let's also assume there is nothing else to do during a span of four
seconds: then, independent of the throttling setting, the CPU power
consumption is 44 Ws for these four seconds.


However: for the 75% throttling state, the CPU only produces 11 W of heat
_all the time_ -- this means, the fan or air conditioning must only consider
11 W. For 0%, the CPU may produce 44 W of heat in a second -- and to cool
that sufficiently, the fan _may_ need to run faster, which consumes more
energy than is saved by only having to cool 7.3 W (instead of 11W) the other
three seconds.


So: P4-clockmod style throttling only makes sense if either

a) the idle handler does not enter the Stop-Grant state (C2) efficiently, or

b) the load varies significantly over time in a manner which has effect on
   the fan, and where the latency induced by throttling doesn't matter.


	Dominik

  reply	other threads:[~2006-02-25 13:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20060214152218.GI10701@stusta.de>
     [not found] ` <20060222024438.GI20204@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
     [not found]   ` <20060222031001.GC4661@stusta.de>
     [not found]     ` <200602212220.05642.dtor_core@ameritech.net>
2006-02-23 19:59       ` Status of X86_P4_CLOCKMOD? Adrian Bunk
2006-02-23 20:41         ` Dave Jones
2006-02-23 23:15           ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-23 23:33             ` Adrian Bunk
2006-02-23 23:55               ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-24  2:39                 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-02-24  2:42                   ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-24 17:33                     ` Adrian Bunk
2006-02-25  1:57           ` Johannes Stezenbach
2006-02-25  4:24             ` Dave Jones
2006-02-25 12:53               ` Johannes Stezenbach
2006-02-27 21:17                 ` Wes Felter
2006-02-25  4:27             ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-25 12:53               ` Adrian Bunk
2006-02-25 13:28                 ` Dominik Brodowski [this message]
2006-02-26 11:12                   ` Pavel Machek
2006-02-26 20:39                   ` Johannes Stezenbach
2006-02-26 20:55                     ` Dominik Brodowski
2006-02-26 23:37                       ` Johannes Stezenbach
2006-02-25 13:36                 ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-25 13:05               ` Johannes Stezenbach
2006-02-28 19:46           ` Matt Mackall
2006-02-28 20:09             ` Dave Jones
2006-02-28 20:19               ` Dmitry Torokhov
2006-02-28 20:47               ` Matt Mackall
2006-02-28 20:57                 ` Dominik Brodowski
2006-02-28 21:26                   ` Matt Mackall
2006-02-28 21:34                     ` Dominik Brodowski
2006-02-28 21:39                       ` Dmitry Torokhov
2006-02-28 22:22                         ` Andi Kleen

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=20060225132820.GA13413@isilmar.linta.de \
    --to=linux@dominikbrodowski.net \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=bunk@stusta.de \
    --cc=cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
    --cc=davej@redhat.com \
    --cc=dtor_core@ameritech.net \
    --cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
    --cc=js@linuxtv.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=samuel.masham@gmail.com \
    --cc=zwane@commfireservices.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox