From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262772AbVGKV4G (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:56:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262752AbVGKVzu (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:55:50 -0400 Received: from mail18.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.199]:57030 "EHLO mail18.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262801AbVGKVzR (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:55:17 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ondemand cpufreq ineffective in 2.6.12 ? Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:55:00 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 Cc: Ken Moffat References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2739073.8hSicVdXCD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200507120755.03110.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart2739073.8hSicVdXCD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:45, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've been using the ondemand governor on athlon64 winchesters for a few > > weeks. I've just noticed that in 2.6.12 the frequency is not > > increasing under load, it remains at the lowest frequency. This seems > > to be down to something in 2.6.12-rc6, but I've seen at least one report > > since then that ondemand works fine. Anybody else seeing this problem ? > > And just for the record, it's still not working in 2.6.13-rc2. Oh > well, back to 2.6.11 for this box. I noticed a change in ondemand on pentiumM, where it would not ramp up if t= he=20 task using cpu was +niced. It does ramp up if the task is not niced. This=20 seems to have been considered all round better but at my end it is not - if= =20 it takes the same number of cycles to complete a task it does not save any= =20 battery running it at 600Mhz vs 1700Mhz, it just takes longer. Yes I know=20 during the initial ramp up the 1700Mhz one will waste more battery, but tha= t=20 is miniscule compared to something that burns cpu constantly for 10 mins. N= ow=20 I'm forced to run my background tasks at nice 0 and not get the benefit of= =20 nicing the tasks, _or_ I have to go diddling with settings in /sys to disab= le=20 this feature or temporarily move to the performance governor. Although I=20 complained lightly initially when this change was suggested, I didn't reali= se=20 it was actually going to become standard.=20 To me the ondemand governor was supposed to not delay you at all, but cause= as=20 much battery saving as possible without noticeable slowdown... Oh well you can't please everyone all the time.=20 Con --nextPart2739073.8hSicVdXCD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBC0uq3ZUg7+tp6mRURAlldAJ9QS4MwND4hydGjLVDB0d5dJNphowCfUvyo YhU1E+WNpFvJTZ9f68WpLuI= =V5DZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2739073.8hSicVdXCD--