Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have
tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or
something, and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people
have tasks that run and then the CPU idles - loading an email,
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 11:06:02PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Aren't you forgetting about CPUfreq governors? Which mean: use the
> maximum CPU frequency when the system is busy, throttle down (or lower
> voltage) when the system is idle.
>
> So yes, throttling will save the battery.
>
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 11:06:02PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Aren't you forgetting about CPUfreq governors? Which mean: use the
maximum CPU frequency when the system is busy, throttle down (or lower
voltage) when the system is idle.
So yes, throttling will save the battery.
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have
tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or
something, and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people
have tasks that run and then the CPU idles - loading an email,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Your usage of "overall power" here is wrong. Power is an instantaneous
> quantity (1/s) like velocity, and you are comparing it to energy which
> is not an instaneous quantity, more like distance.
>
> If we throttle the velocity of a car from 100km/h to
On Sunday, 20 of January 2008, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> >> Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have
> >> tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or something,
> >> and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people have tasks that
> >> run
Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have
tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or something,
and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people have tasks that
run and then the CPU idles - loading an email, displaying a web page,
etc. Clock
On Sunday, 20 of January 2008, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> > Your usage of "overall power" here is wrong. Power is an instantaneous
> > quantity (1/s) like velocity, and you are comparing it to energy which
> > is not an instaneous quantity, more like distance.
> >
> > If we
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:53:41PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
> Then why would it run cooler? What generates the heat when not
> throttled? What stops generating heat when throttled? And you say this
> happens without reducing power consumption? I'm not convinced. I'm a
> long way from that.
Matt Mackall wrote:
Your usage of "overall power" here is wrong. Power is an instantaneous
quantity (1/s) like velocity, and you are comparing it to energy which
is not an instaneous quantity, more like distance.
If we throttle the velocity of a car from 100km/h to 50km/h, it'll
obviously take
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 12:24 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> David Newall wrote:
> > Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>> Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
> >>> less power when throttled than when not?
> >>>
> >> No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
> >>
> > Then why would it
> I believe that all throttling does is forcibly halt the CPU on a
> particular duty cycle. This will reduce the rate of power consumption,
> but reduces the CPU performance by a greater amount (since even at 100%
> halted the CPU still consumes power) and so actually reduces performance
> per
David Newall wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
less power when throttled than when not?
No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
Then why would it run cooler? What generates the heat when not
throttled? What stops generating heat when
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So while throttling may be less efficient in terms of watt seconds used
> > to compile something than running at full speed, it is incorrect to say
> > it uses less power. One machine running for an hour throttled to 50%
> > uses less power (and therefore
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
So while throttling may be less efficient in terms of watt seconds used
to compile something than running at full speed, it is incorrect to say
it uses less power. One machine running for an hour throttled to 50%
uses less power (and therefore less
David Newall wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
less power when throttled than when not?
No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
Then why would it run cooler? What generates the heat when not
throttled? What stops generating heat when
Matt Mackall wrote:
Your usage of overall power here is wrong. Power is an instantaneous
quantity (1/s) like velocity, and you are comparing it to energy which
is not an instaneous quantity, more like distance.
If we throttle the velocity of a car from 100km/h to 50km/h, it'll
obviously take
I believe that all throttling does is forcibly halt the CPU on a
particular duty cycle. This will reduce the rate of power consumption,
but reduces the CPU performance by a greater amount (since even at 100%
halted the CPU still consumes power) and so actually reduces performance
per
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 12:24 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
David Newall wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
less power when throttled than when not?
No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
Then why would it run cooler? What
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:53:41PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
Then why would it run cooler? What generates the heat when not
throttled? What stops generating heat when throttled? And you say this
happens without reducing power consumption? I'm not convinced. I'm a
long way from that.
If
Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have
tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or something,
and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people have tasks that
run and then the CPU idles - loading an email, displaying a web page,
etc. Clock
On Sunday, 20 of January 2008, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Clock throttling is not likely to save your battery, unless you have
tasks that are running at 100% CPU for an unlimited time or something,
and you force your CPU to throttle. Normally most people have tasks that
run and then the
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Matt Mackall wrote:
Your usage of overall power here is wrong. Power is an instantaneous
quantity (1/s) like velocity, and you are comparing it to energy which
is not an instaneous quantity, more like distance.
If we throttle the velocity of a car from 100km/h to
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:53:41PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
> >> less power when throttled than when not?
> >>
> >
> > No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
> >
> Then why would it run cooler?
Ok for
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
>> less power when throttled than when not?
>>
>
> No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
>
Then why would it run cooler? What generates the heat when not
throttled? What stops generating heat when throttled?
> Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
> less power when throttled than when not?
No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Andi Kleen wrote:
> I think the misunderstanding on your side is relative to what there
> is less heat. Throttling essentially reduces temporary heat spikes on
> the silicon, but does not make the system overall take less power
> or generate less heat as measured over a longer time because it will
Andi Kleen wrote:
I think the misunderstanding on your side is relative to what there
is less heat. Throttling essentially reduces temporary heat spikes on
the silicon, but does not make the system overall take less power
or generate less heat as measured over a longer time because it will
be
Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
less power when throttled than when not?
No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Andi Kleen wrote:
Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
less power when throttled than when not?
No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
Then why would it run cooler? What generates the heat when not
throttled? What stops generating heat when throttled? And you
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:53:41PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Isn't it the case that an idle machine will use
less power when throttled than when not?
No that is not the case (not even on old CPUs)
Then why would it run cooler?
Ok for one more (but last)
> It will relative to not throttling.
No it will not. Please reread Dominik's mail I linked to. It explains
it clearly.
> You made a claim that is -physically impossible- as stated, a claim I've
> seen here before and I'm correcting it. If something reduces heat, it
> must save power *by the
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 05:27 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So while throttling may be less efficient in terms of watt seconds used
> > to compile something than running at full speed, it is incorrect to say
> > it uses less power. One machine running for an hour throttled to 50%
> > uses less power
> So while throttling may be less efficient in terms of watt seconds used
> to compile something than running at full speed, it is incorrect to say
> it uses less power. One machine running for an hour throttled to 50%
> uses less power (and therefore less battery and cooling) than another
>
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 02:15 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:27:57PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:11 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Chodorenko Michail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I have a laptop "Extensa 5220", with the processor
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:27:57PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:11 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Chodorenko Michail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I have a laptop "Extensa 5220", with the processor Celeron based on 'core'
> > > technology.
> > > There is ~ /
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:11 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Chodorenko Michail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have a laptop "Extensa 5220", with the processor Celeron based on 'core'
> > technology.
> > There is ~ / arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/p4-clockmod.c in the kernel
> > source code
> > but
Chodorenko Michail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a laptop "Extensa 5220", with the processor Celeron based on 'core'
> technology.
> There is ~ / arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/p4-clockmod.c in the kernel
> source code
> but there's no line identification of my CPU for apply freqency change
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:11 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
Chodorenko Michail [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a laptop Extensa 5220, with the processor Celeron based on 'core'
technology.
There is ~ / arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/p4-clockmod.c in the kernel
source code
but there's no line
Chodorenko Michail [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a laptop Extensa 5220, with the processor Celeron based on 'core'
technology.
There is ~ / arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/p4-clockmod.c in the kernel
source code
but there's no line identification of my CPU for apply freqency change
need to
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 02:15 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:27:57PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:11 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
Chodorenko Michail [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a laptop Extensa 5220, with the processor Celeron based on
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 05:27 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
So while throttling may be less efficient in terms of watt seconds used
to compile something than running at full speed, it is incorrect to say
it uses less power. One machine running for an hour throttled to 50%
uses less power (and
42 matches
Mail list logo
