kernel module options for cpufreq
Dave Jones
davej at redhat.com
Fri Jun 27 19:18:51 UTC 2008
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> At the moment we set:
>
> # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE is not set
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE=y
> # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND is not set
> # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_CONSERVATIVE is not set
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE=m
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE=y
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=m
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE=m
>
> This is not ideal from a power-saving point of view.
>
> In an ideal world we would:
>
> * remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE -- ondemand does a better job
> on all workloads
> * remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE -- we have nothing in userspace
> that needs this sort of control, and if we did, the latency would be
> horrible
needed for the cpuspeed governor
> * remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE -- ondemand automatically
> throttles down to lowest, and is just a hardcoded state
> * compile into the kernel CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND -- we really
> want to be running this on all systems that support it
> * set ONDEMAND or PERFORMANCE to default as USERSPACE is just changed
> to something else by cpuspeed. You really don't want to be using
> USERSPACE at all.
Not all CPUs are capable of running ondemand because of the latency they
incur during transitions.
> Matthew Garrett and I are working on a latency profile for power
> management, and having all these modules potentially loaded is bad.
I don't follow this. Can you show whatever numbers you have that you're
basing this on ?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list