Re: [PATCH] i386 No-Idle-Hz aka Dynamic-Ticks 3

Con Kolivas
2005-08-04T07:16:45Z

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 05:04 pm, Con Kolivas wrote:
> 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.

Oh but thank you very much for confirming the power savings are around the 5%
mark. If we don't measure we won't know (and everything else is mental
masturbation according to Linus ;)).

Cheers,
Con