On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 08:04:59PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > > Wouldn't it be better to set the performance governor then? Because if > > frequency is low and you set the userspace governor, frequency will keep > > to be low if you have no userspace daemon caring about. > > > > Anyway, setting the performance governor would be a good idea in any case > > because of compression and stuff we will have in the near future. > > Doesn't matter -- the machine isn't going to be _running_. And when it > is running again, we're going to go back to the same governor that we > had before. So basically, we're talking about ~2 seconds of runtime > that this will effect.
Compression and encryption of the suspend image can probably benefit from higher CPU speed. > Since that's the case, I'd rather just leave it as "userspace", if only > for the reason that it doesn't _do_ anything. Less stuff being done > means less chances of having to hack on this again when a bug is > introduced. We probably should do a survey on how many distro kernels have "performance" compiled in statically vs. as a module, i know we have: CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y Because the userspace governor might not be loaded at all, so we'd have to check this. OTOH that's the job of the distro packager to make sure that the pm-utils settings matches his environment, so i do not care too much. -- Stefan Seyfried \ "I didn't want to write for pay. I QA / R&D Team Mobile Devices \ wanted to be paid for what I write." SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg \ -- Leonard Cohen _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
