On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
son anyway)
I don't think you have got it right: the only info being passed is the
standard cpufreq list of frequencies; everything else is part of the
cpufreq driver.
to make the decisions the software makeing the decision needs to know how
much power would be used at each freq setting.
power used at a certain frequency is not a single variable.
In fact, on most laptops and other similarly power aware devices, it's
in fact better for power consumption to always go to the maximum
frequency as quickly as possible, so that you can be idle for the
longest possible time after that. Good luck finding a generic way to
represent such things in a (userspace) interface....
I disagree with you here. for each frequency setting you can say how much
power the cpu/system is expected to use (especially as a percentage of the
full power mode). creating this value requires you to take two things into
account, the voltage you are running things at (by far the biggest
effect), and the minor difference that the frequency makes at that voltage
(possibly small enough to ignore entirely).
the API I proposed has no problem with there being multiple modes that
have the same %power but with different %capability numbers.
I'm willing to bet that the current cpufreq software just looks at the
voltage as the value that tells you how much power the thing is going to
use at that setting
the fact that you want to run at the max frequancy for a given voltage is
a reasonable strategy, but it's a power saving _strategy_, not a
capability of the hardware and the API I'm mentioning should be enough to
let you pick the highest performance setting that has the same power
rating as the minimum performance you need (or for that matter to go one
step futher and go with the most efficiant setting in terms of
performance/power that has a performance number higher then what you need,
which could actually be better)
the fact that you currently want to use this strategy doesn't mean that
the other possible modes don't exist, and even if you don't use them now
they should be available within the API (including the cpufreq api)
this strategy should work well on the normal unpredictable workload that
most people deal with, but there are some cases where the workload becomes
pretty predictable (media players for example) where there really is less
variation, and a need for a constant availability of the cpu, so it may
actually save a smidge of power to run below the highest freq that the
voltage allows rather then running faster and being idle more cycles.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
