On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 16:29 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:16:38PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 13:53 +0000, Camaleón wrote: > > > > > [cut] > > > > > It's not about "load" but "frequency speed" and my micro reduces its > > > cycles from 2.8 Ghz. (normal run) to 2.0 Ghz (idle+ondemad) which I > > > prefer. Why wasting cpu cycles and increasing the heat of the whole > > > system if I don't really need all that power all the time? > > > > There's no big difference for the load and the load will cause the heat. > > I'm using the GNOME applet anyway. Before users run into issues > > 'performance' as default for everybody would be the better choice. > > > > Is there any CPU where CPU frequency scaling really makes a difference > > for load? > > Just about any processor in a mobile context (laptop, smartphone etc) > can benefit from reducing CPU frequency. Each clock cycle requires work, > even if the CPU is not doing anything productive (i.e. it's idle). So > fewer clock cycles means longer battery life. > > In terms of load as in load average, decreasing clock frequency should > actually increase the load (you have the same amount of work to be done, > but less computational power available to do the work). >
I asked if there's any CPU where ondemand will safe load. How much less Watt does your CPU need when using CPU frequency scaling? I bet it will be marginal, irrelevant regarding to battery life and produced heat. Why not using ondemand set by the kernel's default governor? My desktop kernels are compiled to set it to ondemand and my audio kernels are compiled to set it to performance. Why does Debian add such a Windows like folderol script at startup? The default kernel already could set the governor to ondemand, so the needs for every user are satisfied. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1308067360.2218.234.camel@debian
