On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:14:06 +0200 Stefan Seyfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. FWIW, debian has _GOV_USERSPACE=m. So performance seems like a better default to me. grts Tim _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
