Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: Introduces stepped frequency increase

[Corrado Zoccolo]

Hi Matthew,

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Matthew Garrett<mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:56:33PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> The patch introduces a new sysfs tunable cpufreq/ondemand/freq_step,
>> as found in conservative governor, to chose the frequency increase step,
>> expressed as percentage (default = 100 is previous behaviour).
>>
>> This allows fine tuning powersaving on mobile CPUs, since smaller steps will allow to:
>> * absorb punctual load spikes
>> * stabilize at the needed frequency, without passing for more power consuming states, and
>
> Is this a measured powersaving? The ondemand model is based on the
> assumption that the idle state is disproportionately lower in power than
> any running state, and therefore it's more sensible to run flat out for
> short periods of time than run at half speed for longer. Is this
> inherently flawed, or is it an artifact of differences in your processor
> design?

The flawed assumption is that running at doubled frequency halves the
completion time.
On cpus that can change the core speed without impacting the
memory-cache bandwidth
(i.e. the Pentium M), workloads that access lot of memory go at the
same speed at
maximum and minimum frequency.
Now I see new CPUs that can flush their cache during deep idle states (Atoms),
this aggravates the aforementioned problem, rendering the high
frequency state much less appetible.

Corrado

>
> --
> Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>



-- 
__________________________________________________________________________

dott. Corrado Zoccolo                          mailto:czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx
PhD - Department of Computer Science - University of Pisa, Italy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/