Hi! > >You should say what the setting does; you can mention below what MSR > >it corresponds to, but "Control IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS setting" is not > >suitable user documentation. > > > >> Also, the expectation here is that kernel will do the right thing by > >> default. The option here is to the user who_knows_what_he_is_doing to > >> override the kernel default. > > > >You did not give user enough information to do anything intelligent... > > I have rephrased it in the newer version sent yday with more info. Good. > >> > Also... does it make change to tweak the setting during > >runtime? Maybe > >> > different settings for AC and battery power? > >> > >> Yes. Matthew mentioned in other response aboue setting this based on > >> freq. For the CPUs that support this feature currently, we don't see > >> advantage in setting this feature at run time. > > > >If the feature is useless, then why set it at all? > > I just said changing it at run time doesn't give us benefits. Not >that That can be only true if it does not give benefits period... AC and battery power are quite different scenarios. > the feature is useless. Having the default value for the tunable in > mid-range does increase energy-efficiency than the tunable being > at performance level. So... what does it really do? What is the difference in power consumption, and what is the difference in performance? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
