From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ducrot Bruno Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:46:11 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040112154611.GH14031@poupinou.org> References: <20040111211255.GA31105@dominikbrodowski.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040111211255.GA31105@dominikbrodowski.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk To: len.brown@intel.com, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:12:55PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > [Len, could you test and verify this patch, and push it to Linus, please?] > > The current algorithm used by Linux ACPI for passive thermal management has > two shortcomings: ... > +/* If a passive cooling situation is detected, primarily CPUfreq is used, as it > + * offers (in most cases) voltage scaling in addition to frequency scaling, and > + * thus a cubic (instead of linear) reduction of energy. Also, we allow for > + * _any_ cpufreq driver and not only the acpi-cpufreq driver. > + */ Just a stupid question: What is best if processor heat issues (apart turning on the fan)? Reducing voltage of the processor, but still allowing it to run execution at 100% (which is the case if the processor is heating), or reduce amount of time allowed for the processor to execute? -- Ducrot Bruno -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.