Hi, whereis the contraddiction? I wouldn't consider 95% to be so little :-D
But the idea is that, if you have a task that is CPU bound, you are getting some bang for your bucks, it's not done pointlessly. Anyway, unless you are planning to do s...@n900 or something similar, it is unlikely you will keep your device in that state indefinitely, which is what i was warning against. Cheers, Igor ________________________________________ From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org] On Behalf Of ext Javier S. Pedro [ma...@javispedro.com] Sent: 28 January 2010 00:43 To: maemo-developers@maemo.org Subject: Where are the N900 "too much time at 600Mhz" safeguards? When I got my N900, one of the first things I noticed is that (as measured by powertop) I could never get a 100% ratio at 600 Mhz, but more like 95%. I quickly assumed this was the safeguard for the issue Igor Stoppa talked about at the Maemo Summit. However, I've noticed today (as suggested by a tmo post) that the above is not caused by any special modification in the kernel, but rather because of the CPU idling while waiting for the SGX / some other hw (so, testing methodology failure on my part :) ). Thus, given any task bounded by raw CPU throughput, the device will happily clock itself at 600Mhz, even for hours. Doesn't that contradict what Igor said at the summit? -- Javier _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
