1 |
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Bill Longman <bill.longman@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On 05/10/2011 09:34 AM, James wrote: |
3 |
>> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>> otherwise. Just enable ondemand, disable everything else, and et the kernel |
7 |
>>> get on with doing what it does best: |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> So this is what you are saying? |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> [*] CPU Frequency scaling │ │ |
13 |
>> │ │ [*] Enable CPUfreq debugging │ │ |
14 |
>> │ │ <*> CPU frequency translation statistics │ │ |
15 |
>> │ │ [ ] CPU frequency translation statistics details │ │ |
16 |
>> │ │ Default CPUFreq governor (performance) ---> │ │ |
17 |
>> │ │ -*- 'performance' governor │ │ |
18 |
>> │ │ < > 'powersave' governor │ │ |
19 |
>> │ │ < > 'userspace' governor for userspace frequency scaling│ │ |
20 |
>> │ │ <*> 'ondemand' cpufreq policy governor │ │ |
21 |
>> │ │ < > 'conservative' cpufreq governor │ │ |
22 |
>> │ │ *** CPUFreq processor drivers *** │ │ |
23 |
>> │ │ < > Processor Clocking Control interface driver │ │ |
24 |
>> │ │ <*> ACPI Processor P-States driver │ │ |
25 |
>> │ │ < > AMD Opteron/Athlon64 PowerNow! │ │ |
26 |
>> │ │ < > Intel Enhanced SpeedStep (deprecated) │ │ |
27 |
>> │ │ < > Intel Pentium 4 clock modulation |
28 |
>> |
29 |
>> |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Yes but no. Yes, those are the correct choices, but the default governor |
32 |
> should be ondemand. |
33 |
|
34 |
Or in the case of the OP who is brave enough (or silly enough?) to |
35 |
risk the long term reliability of his CPU running it with no fan, |
36 |
possibly choose powersave with a specific low clock rate as the |
37 |
default and then switch to either ondemand or conservative manually |
38 |
when he needs more performance. In a machine such as he's playing with |
39 |
I wonder if he really wants ondemand (jumps to max and then slows down |
40 |
over time) vs conservative which more slowly ramps up the clock rate |
41 |
if the job at hand takes more time. |
42 |
|
43 |
It's all a trade off of performance vs power & heat. |
44 |
|
45 |
On my 12 thread server I've played with these two and frankly don't |
46 |
see a lot of difference doing any large job. They are both a bot |
47 |
slower than running performance, but I save a lot of power (and over |
48 |
time money) using them so I'm happy. |
49 |
|
50 |
- Mark |