From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261926AbVHDHJh (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 03:09:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261922AbVHDHJh (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 03:09:37 -0400 Received: from mail23.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.133.164]:21187 "EHLO mail23.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261926AbVHDHIu (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 03:08:50 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Jim MacBaine Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386 No-Idle-Hz aka Dynamic-Ticks 3 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:04:36 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org, tony@atomide.com, tuukka.tikkanen@elektrobit.com References: <200508031559.24704.kernel@kolivas.org> <3afbacad0508032234f9af1f3@mail.gmail.com> <3afbacad05080323596b39e9eb@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3afbacad05080323596b39e9eb@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508041704.37026.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 04:59 pm, Jim MacBaine wrote: > I just borrowed a power meter to see (or not to see) real effects of > dyntick. The difference between static 1000 HZ and dynamic HZ is much > less than I expected, only a very little about noise. With dyntick > disabled at 1000 HZ my laptop needs 31,3 W. With dyntick enabled I > get 29.8 W, the pmstats-0.2 script shows me that the system is at > 35-45 HZ when it is idle. > > The power consumption difference between 250 HZ static and dyntick is > below the noise, so maybe hardly worth all the struggle. That's not the point. We want the power savings without sacrificing the extra ticks if we need them. Cheers, Con