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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-20 5:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-17 22:29 [PATCH] cpufreq_ondemand Alexander Clouter
2004-10-17 22:35 ` Con Kolivas
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 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 8:12 ` Mattia Dongili
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 8:39 ` Alexander Clouter
2004-10-18 8:54 ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-10-19 5:06 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-10-18 22:48 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox