James Bruce wrote:
Ondrej Zary wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of
old systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you
James Bruce wrote:
Ondrej Zary wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of
old systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I was finally able to get C3 state working. It seems that my BIOS is
leaving USB controllers in an active state(?). Without any USB drivers
loaded, C3 is not possible. With drivers loaded, but no device plugged
in C3 works fine. Kernel is 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 + acpi-sbs.
Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:29 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
;-).
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines
Jim Crilly wrote:
On 07/31/05 11:10:20PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
I really like having 250HZ as an _option_, but what I don't see is why
it should be the _default_. I believe this is Lee's position as
Last I checked, ACPI and CPU speed scaling were not enabled by default;
Kernel defaults
Jim Crilly wrote:
On 07/31/05 11:10:20PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
I really like having 250HZ as an _option_, but what I don't see is why
it should be the _default_. I believe this is Lee's position as
Last I checked, ACPI and CPU speed scaling were not enabled by default;
Kernel defaults
Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:29 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ300 real soon now
;-).
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I was finally able to get C3 state working. It seems that my BIOS is
leaving USB controllers in an active state(?). Without any USB drivers
loaded, C3 is not possible. With drivers loaded, but no device plugged
in C3 works fine. Kernel is 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 + acpi-sbs.
Ondrej Zary wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of
old systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should
Ondrej Zary wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of
old systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 08:57 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 8/3/05, Hans Kristian Rosbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 00:50 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> > > Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> > > >>The tradeoff
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 08:57 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On 8/3/05, Hans Kristian Rosbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 00:50 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
The tradeoff is a realistic
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 14:13 -0300, Stephen Ray wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> >>BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
> >>as siple as "go 2.6"...
> >
> >
> > Does not matter. An app that only ever
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
as siple as "go 2.6"...
Does not matter. An app that only ever worked on 2.6 + x86 will break
on 2.6.13.
Lee
But then isn't that app broken?
(Sorry all, but after receiving about 5 similar messages I'm going to
make one last reply.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, my understanding was that when we properly support usb suspend,
this won't be an issue anyway for much usb hardware. I think it's
possible to put some mice to sleep when
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, August 1, 2005 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> >
> > The tradeoff is a realistic
On 8/3/05, Hans Kristian Rosbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 00:50 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> > Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> > >>The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
> > >>the
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 00:50 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> >>The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
> >>the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
>
Am Dienstag, 2. August 2005 16:20 schrieben Sie:
> On 2005-08-02T10:02:59, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > > systems that don't.
> > Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
>
Am Dienstag, 2. August 2005 16:20 schrieben Sie:
On 2005-08-02T10:02:59, Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 00:50 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
have a USB
On 8/3/05, Hans Kristian Rosbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 00:50 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
the minimum sleep
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, August 1, 2005 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300
(Sorry all, but after receiving about 5 similar messages I'm going to
make one last reply.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, my understanding was that when we properly support usb suspend,
this won't be an issue anyway for much usb hardware. I think it's
possible to put some mice to sleep when
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
as siple as go 2.6...
Does not matter. An app that only ever worked on 2.6 + x86 will break
on 2.6.13.
Lee
But then isn't that app broken? What
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 14:13 -0300, Stephen Ray wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
as siple as go 2.6...
Does not matter. An app that only ever worked on 2.6 + x86 will
On 2005-08-02T10:52:00, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Power consumption matters to server, desktop, and laptop.
> >
> > Assuming this is a laptop issue is wildly incorrect.
>
> I would think you'd get the best power/performance ration from a desktop
> by just having it suspend after
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:45 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> It's a MONEY problem, something everybody can understand.
> It's not an environmental problem at all.
It is a huge environmental problem if you're burning fossil fuels to
generate that power.
Anyway I didn't mean there's no
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
>>>
>>> Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
>>> This is basically a laptop issue.
>>
>> Eh yes, very much.
>
>
> > > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > > systems that don't.
> >
> > Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> > This is basically a laptop issue.
>
> Eh yes, very much.
Indeed. Safe the environment etc.
Folkert van
Lee Revell schrieb:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:42 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
>
>>I do like saving power, which is why I run cpu frequency scaling on
>>every machine I have that supports it.
>
>
> My Athlon XP desktop doesn't support frequency scaling but has working
> ACPI C-states (at least
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:42 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> I do like saving power, which is why I run cpu frequency scaling on
> every machine I have that supports it.
My Athlon XP desktop doesn't support frequency scaling but has working
ACPI C-states (at least under Windows) so will run as cool
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should have
said: 99% of
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should have
said: 99% of desktops with the
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
But rather think "data center".
The difference between using our idle cpu cycles for [EMAIL PROTECTED] or just
leaving the xeons and opterons idle when they're not crunching away is
around $1300 a month (yes, I know it's a big datacenter)
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:13 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:19:42AM +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > Lee Revell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >> I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> > >> ;-).
> >
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 10:43 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> >>systems that don't.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Does anyone really give a shit about
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop issue.
Power
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:23 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > As I said, I do not care about default value. And you should not care,
> > too, since distros are likely to pick their own defaults.
>
> If the default value does not matter then the default
On 2005-08-02T10:02:59, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > systems that don't.
> Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> This is basically a laptop issue.
Desktops? Screw
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 16:20 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> then you probably are simply too cheap
> to buy a SUV too
I have not driven a car since 2001.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:02, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > systems that don't.
>
> Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> This is basically
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
> as siple as "go 2.6"...
Does not matter. An app that only ever worked on 2.6 + x86 will break
on 2.6.13.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:23 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> As I said, I do not care about default value. And you should not care,
> too, since distros are likely to pick their own defaults.
If the default value does not matter then the default should remain at
1000 so as to not violate the
On Tue, Aug 02 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > systems that don't.
> >
>
> Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> This is basically
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> systems that don't.
>
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop issue.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this
James Bruce wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
>>The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
>>the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
>>have a USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops).
Hi!
> >In the end, Linus will decide this anyway. I can understand that you
> >don't want to change your application. Help developing the dynamic
> >tick patch, and maybe you won't have to =)
>
> From what I can tell, tick skipping works fine right now, it just needs
> some cleanup. Thus I'd
Hi!
> >Any argument along the lines of the change of a default
> >value in the defconfig screwing people over equally applies the other
> >way around; by not changing the defconfig, you're screwing laptop users
> >(and others that want less power consumption) over. The world is not
> >black and
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:19:42AM +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> >> ;-).
> >>
> >
> > Any idea what their official recommendation for people
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 05:41:31PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > [But we
> > probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that
> > matches what 99% of users will use.]
>
> Sorry, this is just ridiculous. You're saying 99% of
* James Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050801 09:28]:
>
> Finally, as a conspiracy theorist, I wonder if Linus is just playing us
> to get more people working on the tick skipping and highres timer
> patches. Someone with the ability to herd cats obviously has to be
> sneaky. As an impressive
* James Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050801 09:28]:
Finally, as a conspiracy theorist, I wonder if Linus is just playing us
to get more people working on the tick skipping and highres timer
patches. Someone with the ability to herd cats obviously has to be
sneaky. As an impressive
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 05:41:31PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
[But we
probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that
matches what 99% of users will use.]
Sorry, this is just ridiculous. You're saying 99% of Linux
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:19:42AM +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ300 real soon now
;-).
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps
Hi!
Any argument along the lines of the change of a default
value in the defconfig screwing people over equally applies the other
way around; by not changing the defconfig, you're screwing laptop users
(and others that want less power consumption) over. The world is not
black and white,
Hi!
In the end, Linus will decide this anyway. I can understand that you
don't want to change your application. Help developing the dynamic
tick patch, and maybe you won't have to =)
From what I can tell, tick skipping works fine right now, it just needs
some cleanup. Thus I'd expect
James Bruce wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
have a USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop issue.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Tue, Aug 02 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:23 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
As I said, I do not care about default value. And you should not care,
too, since distros are likely to pick their own defaults.
If the default value does not matter then the default should remain at
1000 so as to not violate the principle
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
as siple as go 2.6...
Does not matter. An app that only ever worked on 2.6 + x86 will break
on 2.6.13.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:02, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 16:20 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
then you probably are simply too cheap
to buy a SUV too
I have not driven a car since 2001.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On 2005-08-02T10:02:59, Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop issue.
Desktops? Screw desktops.
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:23 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
As I said, I do not care about default value. And you should not care,
too, since distros are likely to pick their own defaults.
If the default value does not matter then the default should
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop issue.
Power
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 10:43 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:13 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:19:42AM +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ300 real soon now
;-).
Any idea
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
But rather think data center.
The difference between using our idle cpu cycles for [EMAIL PROTECTED] or just
leaving the xeons and opterons idle when they're not crunching away is
around $1300 a month (yes, I know it's a big datacenter) slightly
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should have
said: 99% of desktops with the
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should have
said: 99% of
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:42 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
I do like saving power, which is why I run cpu frequency scaling on
every machine I have that supports it.
My Athlon XP desktop doesn't support frequency scaling but has working
ACPI C-states (at least under Windows) so will run as cool as
Lee Revell schrieb:
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:42 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
I do like saving power, which is why I run cpu frequency scaling on
every machine I have that supports it.
My Athlon XP desktop doesn't support frequency scaling but has working
ACPI C-states (at least under
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop issue.
Eh yes, very much.
Indeed. Safe the environment etc.
Folkert van Heusden
--
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
This is basically a laptop issue.
Eh yes, very much.
Indeed. Safe the
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 13:45 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
It's a MONEY problem, something everybody can understand.
It's not an environmental problem at all.
It is a huge environmental problem if you're burning fossil fuels to
generate that power.
Anyway I didn't mean there's no point
On 2005-08-02T10:52:00, Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Power consumption matters to server, desktop, and laptop.
Assuming this is a laptop issue is wildly incorrect.
I would think you'd get the best power/performance ration from a desktop
by just having it suspend after 5 or 10
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
>>The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
>>the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
>>have a USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
>
> The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in the
> minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they have a
> USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can throw in
> Con's
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 12:18 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > So it looks like artsd wastes way more power DMAing a bunch of silent
> It's already 'fixed' just set artsd to release the sound device after some
> idle time. It's in the "Auto-Suspend"
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 12:18 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> Yes, Lee needs to chill a bit. I'll hopefully explain our position
> calmly enough below.
I am a bit frustrated because when I first objected to 250HZ as the
default, I was told to come up with some numbers. Now we have the
numbers, and
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 19:07 +0300, Jan Knutar wrote:
> MPlayer cares more about unbroken sound drivers, since the video needs
> to run at the speed of your sound boards oscillator if you don't want sound
> and video to run at different rates.
> Unfortunately people use an almost random mix of
On 08/01/05 09:26:00AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > And there are older machines that won't boot with it enabled. The machine
> > I'm typing this on has a really shitty ACPI implementation, I don't remember
> > the details because it's been so long but I know that I have to disable
> >
David Weinehall wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
bent"?
Calm down.
Yes, Lee needs to chill a bit. I'll
On Monday 01 August 2005 09:19, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> > require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
> > bent"?
>
> MPlayer is using /dev/rtc and was running smooth for me since the good
>
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> > ;-).
> >
>
> Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> require the
Hi!
> > > > I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
> > > > ;-).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> > > require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
> > > bent"?
> >
> > So you
Hi!
> > > If the kernel defaults are irrelevant, then it would make more sense to
> > > leave the default HZ as 1000 and not to enable the cpufreq and ACPI in
> > > order to keep with the principle of least surprise for people who do use
> > > kernel.org kernels.
> >
> > Well, I'd say you want
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
>> ;-).
>>
>
> Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
> require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the
Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ300 real soon now
;-).
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of
Hi!
If the kernel defaults are irrelevant, then it would make more sense to
leave the default HZ as 1000 and not to enable the cpufreq and ACPI in
order to keep with the principle of least surprise for people who do use
kernel.org kernels.
Well, I'd say you want ACPI enabled. New
Hi!
I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ300 real soon now
;-).
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of Get
bent?
So you busy wait for 1msec, big deal.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:47 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ300 real soon now
;-).
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep
On Monday 01 August 2005 09:19, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of Get
bent?
MPlayer is using /dev/rtc and was running smooth for me since the good
old 2.4
David Weinehall wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of Get
bent?
Calm down.
Yes, Lee needs to chill a bit. I'll hopefully
On 08/01/05 09:26:00AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
And there are older machines that won't boot with it enabled. The machine
I'm typing this on has a really shitty ACPI implementation, I don't remember
the details because it's been so long but I know that I have to disable
ACPI
for
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 19:07 +0300, Jan Knutar wrote:
MPlayer cares more about unbroken sound drivers, since the video needs
to run at the speed of your sound boards oscillator if you don't want sound
and video to run at different rates.
Unfortunately people use an almost random mix of alsa,
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 12:18 -0400, James Bruce wrote:
Yes, Lee needs to chill a bit. I'll hopefully explain our position
calmly enough below.
I am a bit frustrated because when I first objected to 250HZ as the
default, I was told to come up with some numbers. Now we have the
numbers, and
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 12:18 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
So it looks like artsd wastes way more power DMAing a bunch of silent
It's already 'fixed' just set artsd to release the sound device after some
idle time. It's in the Auto-Suspend seection of
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
