From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261245AbVGLH66 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:58:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261257AbVGLH64 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:58:56 -0400 Received: from mf00.sitadelle.com ([212.94.174.67]:56448 "EHLO smtp.cegetel.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261256AbVGLH6v (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:58:51 -0400 Message-ID: <42D3782F.7070104@lifl.fr> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:58:39 +0200 From: Eric Piel Organization: LIFL User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-3mdk (X11/20050322) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, ja, es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ken Moffat Subject: Re: ondemand cpufreq ineffective in 2.6.12 ? References: <200507120755.03110.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200507120755.03110.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 11.07.2005 23:55, Con Kolivas wrote/a écrit: > 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 the > task using cpu was +niced. It does ramp up if the task is not niced. This > seems to have been considered all round better but at my end it is not - if > it takes the same number of cycles to complete a task it does not save any > battery running it at 600Mhz vs 1700Mhz, it just takes longer. Yes I know > during the initial ramp up the 1700Mhz one will waste more battery, but that > is miniscule compared to something that burns cpu constantly for 10 mins. Now > I'm forced to run my background tasks at nice 0 and not get the benefit of > nicing the tasks, _or_ I have to go diddling with settings in /sys to disable > this feature or temporarily move to the performance governor. echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ondemand/ignore_nice Put it once for all in your initscript :-) > Although I > complained lightly initially when this change was suggested, I didn't realise > it was actually going to become standard. I like it because it avoids that any background task which is ran makes the fans turning like hell. It's also very advantageous with tasks like screensavers or a la seti@home (but few people have this on their laptop). > > To me the ondemand governor was supposed to not delay you at all, but cause as > much battery saving as possible without noticeable slowdown... > > Oh well you can't please everyone all the time. It's a tradeoff :-) Ken, does this solve your problems (but that seems strange that all your tasks are nice'd) ? Eric