On Feb 17, 2008 2:33 AM, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > > Would you agree that ignore_nice_load should not be set by default? > > yes with one exception: there's a class of nice tasks such as [EMAIL > PROTECTED] and stuff > where people do want it ignored
Still, sleeping the process when on battery would be even better? > > Also what up_threshold do you recommend? (Ubuntu uses 31% by default, > > but AFAICT, race to idle would mean that a lower up_threshold would > > actually save power) > > 31% is just a silly value that is so wrong on many levels; they should just > leave > the kernel default. Would you care to elaborate? In martin's benchmark (below) ondemand is 2% slower than performance. For someone on AC, this may make them choose performance over ondemand. http://martin.ankerl.com/2006/08/16/how-to-make-firefox-40-percent-faster/ How does performance compare to ondemand with a low up_threshold? It seems that ondemand with a low up_threshold could give "performance" like speed while saving power over the long periods when the desktop is unattended. The only reference to up_threshold I found on this list was http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00699.html which mentions using an up_threshold of about 75% when not in power-saving mode. So, there is little point in going much below 75%, even on AC power? -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia _______________________________________________ Power mailing list [email protected] http://www.bughost.org/mailman/listinfo/power
