On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:39:35PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 17:36 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:29:52PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > > > In fact, we've noticed severe regressions with p4-clockmod over simply > > > having no scaling driver at all - and are not going to built it into our > > > kernels. > > > > It makes sense to have p4-clockmod from a thermal management > > perspective. We should probably bump its transition latency to more than > > 10ms to prevent ondemand binding to it. > > > If that's possible; that'd be good. > > The trouble with it is that it never seems to bring the CPU anywhere > near maximum performance. This is one reason why in .30 the user interface for p4-clockmod is disabled. It'll only get throttled when ACPI goes into OMG I'M OVERHEATING mode, and ramp back up once it cools off. p4-clockmod and ondemand is a recipe for fail. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
