linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Cc: David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Chodorenko Michail <misha@one.by>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Celeron Core
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:24:15 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47939FDF.7070805@shaw.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1200856457.13649.29.camel@cinder.waste.org>

Matt Mackall wrote:
> Your usage of "overall power" here is wrong. Power is an instantaneous
> quantity (1/s) like velocity, and you are comparing it to energy which
> is not an instaneous quantity, more like distance.
> 
> If we throttle the velocity of a car from 100km/h to 50km/h, it'll
> obviously take longer for it travel a given distance. Now what will it
> mean when we ask about its "overall velocity" when it reaches its
> destination? We surely don't mean the distance travelled - that's not a
> velocity! We can perhaps talk about its average velocity, which will
> obviously be smaller.

You are right.. it should be that overall energy usage is higher with 
clock throttling.

> 
>> Real CPU clock throttling schemes like SpeedStep, PowerNow, etc. 
>> actually do increase performance per watt when they kick in.
> 
> That may be true. But the statement "throttling does not reduce power
> usage" remains false. And the statement "throttling reduces heat
> production but not power usage" remains physically impossible.

It reduces the rate of power usage (watts), however it will likely not 
decreate or even increase the energy usage (i.e. watt-hours) of any 
given computational task.

> 
> It might be true that "throttling increases energy usage per unit of
> computation relative to no power saving measures at all", but that is
> not incompatible with "throttling lets you run your laptop on battery
> longer than no power saving measures at all", which is often what people
> care about.
> 
> Voltage/frequency reduction is obviously a much better solution if it's
> available as reducing voltage reduces power usage quadratically rather
> than linearly. But beyond the quadratic/linear thing, the concept is the
> same: use less power and your battery lasts longer.

Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have 
tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or something, 
and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people have tasks that 
run and then the CPU idles - loading an email, displaying a web page, 
etc. Clock throttling will just make these tasks utilize the CPU for a 
longer time proportional to the amount clock throttling and therefore 
negate any gains in battery usage.

  reply	other threads:[~2008-01-20 19:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <fa.2Y+LplM9PCtpiAXzv/aJ3Pcnv4Y@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.OpXJDCw416yeXEvt0cwrupi/qS0@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]   ` <fa.sj34KNXkf9z/ZO3fVJ+CYcgcuCs@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]     ` <fa.qpK4b5H7lkLeIaPtbJKzKV46yFY@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]       ` <fa.WeBRuL3UPPVPESVzfopvVyNcAw4@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]         ` <fa.LZLUxfR64dAZFPtin9JNet7ieiY@ifi.uio.no>
2008-01-20 18:24           ` PROBLEM: Celeron Core Robert Hancock
2008-01-20 19:14             ` Matt Mackall
2008-01-20 19:24               ` Robert Hancock [this message]
2008-01-20 21:31                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-21  7:48               ` Daniel Barkalow
2008-01-20 19:16             ` Andi Kleen
     [not found] <fa.tHyDHqRNYFvp4N4SR4JtJRuqh0k@ifi.uio.no>
2008-01-21 23:59 ` Robert Hancock
2008-01-20 22:06 Tomasz Chmielewski
2008-01-20 22:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-21 10:11 ` Matthew Garrett
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-01-18 19:06 Chodorenko Michail
2008-01-18 21:11 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-19  0:27   ` Matt Mackall
2008-01-19  1:15     ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-19  4:10       ` Matt Mackall
2008-01-19  4:27         ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-19  4:40           ` Matt Mackall
2008-01-19  4:54             ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-20  4:35               ` David Newall
2008-01-20  5:13                 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-20  5:23                   ` David Newall
2008-01-20  5:42                     ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-20 20:53                     ` Lennart Sorensen
2008-01-20 11:18           ` Geert Uytterhoeven

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=47939FDF.7070805@shaw.ca \
    --to=hancockr@shaw.ca \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=davidn@davidnewall.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=misha@one.by \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).