From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Eisenbach Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq_ondemand Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:03:55 -0700 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <7f800d9f04101922031be5cfe8@mail.gmail.com> References: <20041017222916.GA30841@inskipp.digriz.org.uk> <4172F3C5.8090604@kolivas.org> Reply-To: Andre Eisenbach Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4172F3C5.8090604@kolivas.org> 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: Con Kolivas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Clouter , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:35:49 +1000, Con Kolivas 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