From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>, S K <nospamnoham@gmail.com>,
Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@intel.com>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>,
Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpufreq doesn't seem to work in Intel Q9300
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:59:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080812125946.59a0669c@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080812190302.GA26751@isilmar.linta.de>
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:03:02 +0200
Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net> wrote:
> Hi Arjan,
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 04:58:16PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 07:11:28AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > 1) when the cpu is idle (as in "idle loop C states/hlt";
> > > > p4_clockmod doesn't mean anything.. the clock is stopped not
> > > > just skipped. 2) when the cpu is executing code (eg non-idle),
> > > > it takes more power for a unit of time than it takes when it's
> > > > idle
> > >
> > > This statement might be true, but might also be wrong:
> > > a) on systems where only C1 is exported, p4-clockmod most
> > > often equals the state the CPU is in when in C1[*],
> >
> > that's.. not entirely true btw.
>
> well, the spec isn't really clear about this. It says (IA32 Intel
> Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 3, section 13.14.3)
> that P6 family processors did this using STPCLK#. And STPCLK# was
> also used by the chipset to force the CPU to enter C2, IIRC.
not quite.. if it does for a certain cpu, then it's only for cpus that
support C2.
> Do P4s only do an C1-equivalent (or even less than that) now, as they
> do the thermal throttling internally instead of externally using
> STPCLK#?
it's basically always less (or really best case equal) than c1 just due
to the really short duration
>
> If it's C2-equivalent vs. C1, it's a win.
it's not.
>So throttling would be a
> win from this perspective on a only C1-capable PIII, but not on a P4?
> Is that what you're trying to hint at here?
not even on PIII is it a win.. it's just too short a duration
and your C2 theory.. not sure I believe it.
>
> To summarize:
>
> (1) p6 family processors use STPCLK# initiated by the chipset for
> thermal throttling.
> (2) STPCLK# is also used by the chipset to make the CPU enter C2.
well.... sometimes. It's more complex generally.
> (3) p4-clockmod uses the STPCLK#-equivalent in p4 CPUs.
> (4) Therefore, it is as effective as STPCLK#, and as effective as C2.
This is not correct. C2 is only effective if you stay in it "long
enough". Otherwise you pay the transition cost twice.
> (5) STPCLK#/C2 has higher energy savings than hlt/C1.
incorrect
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-12 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-03 10:00 cpufreq doesn't seem to work in Intel Q9300 S K
2008-08-03 10:31 ` none
2008-08-04 5:06 ` S K
2008-08-07 9:35 ` S K
2008-08-07 19:24 ` Alan Jenkins
2008-08-08 1:32 ` Zhao Yakui
2008-08-08 4:53 ` S K
2008-08-08 8:41 ` Alan Jenkins
2008-08-08 10:10 ` S K
2008-08-08 10:43 ` S K
2008-08-08 12:30 ` Thomas Renninger
2008-08-08 18:23 ` S K
2008-08-09 18:59 ` Thomas Renninger
2008-08-09 19:30 ` Thomas Renninger
2008-08-10 8:28 ` S K
2008-08-11 1:33 ` Zhao Yakui
2008-08-11 4:44 ` S K
2008-08-11 5:24 ` Zhao Yakui
2008-08-11 5:24 ` S K
2008-08-11 7:00 ` Alan Cox
2008-08-11 10:55 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-11 13:15 ` S K
2008-08-11 13:23 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-12 5:43 ` S K
2008-08-11 11:22 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-08-11 11:38 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-08-11 11:53 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-08-11 14:02 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-08-11 14:07 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-08-11 14:12 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-08-11 14:11 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-08-11 16:03 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-08-11 16:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-08-11 16:28 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-08-11 16:44 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-08-12 19:27 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-08-11 19:33 ` Dominik Brodowski
2008-08-11 23:58 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-08-12 19:03 ` Dominik Brodowski
2008-08-12 19:59 ` Arjan van de Ven [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080812125946.59a0669c@infradead.org \
--to=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk \
--cc=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@dominikbrodowski.net \
--cc=nospamnoham@gmail.com \
--cc=trenn@suse.de \
--cc=yakui.zhao@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox