Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers

Pavel Machek
2005-08-02T11:24:31Z

Hi!

> >Any argument along the lines of the change of a default
> >value in the defconfig screwing people over equally applies the other
> >way around; by not changing the defconfig, you're screwing laptop users
> >(and others that want less power consumption) over. The world is not
> >black and white, it's a very boring gray (or a very sadening bloody
> >red; but I hope we won't come to that point just because of a silly
> >argument on lkml...)
>
> The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in the
> minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they have a
> USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can throw in
> Con's disturbing AV benchmark results (1). As a result, some of us
> don't think 250HZ is a great tradeoff to make
> _for_the_default_value_.

As I said, I do not care about default value. And you should not care,
too, since distros are likely to pick their own defaults.

> From what I can tell, tick skipping works fine right now, it just needs
> some cleanup. Thus I'd expect something like it will get integrated
> into 2.6.14. If it gets in, the default HZ should go back up to 1000.
> In that case why decrease it for exactly one patchlevel?

I am afraid that CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ will be ready for 2.6.14...

Pavel
--
teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be.