Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 anything. I should have said: 99% of desktops with the capability to do ACPI sleep have at least one USB device attached (usually a mouse). [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power active state:C2 max_cstate: C8 bus master activity: states: C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[000] usage[00052470] *C2: type[C2] promotion[--] demotion[C1] latency[090] usage[02699149] This is PCPartner TXB820DS motherboard (Socket 7, i430TX) with 1998 Award BIOS and C-states seem to work fine. I've tested it in Windows 98 some time ago - the CPU is almost cold when idle with ACPI enabled and hot with ACPI disabled (that's partly caused by the fact that Windows 9x does not HLT the CPU when idle). With Pentium 100MHz in the socket and ACPI enabled, I could even touch the CPU (without heatsink) without burning my fingers. Ok I stand corrected, I had no idea there were machines that old where ACPI worked correctly in Linux. Do you see the same kind of heat reduction in Linux as Win98? What HZ value are you using, as the latency for entering C2 on your machine looks pretty substantial (Your C2 almost looks like a new machine's C3 state, which is supposedly the first level where substantial power savings occur on a new machines). I did some tests: 1. disconnected CPU fan power 2. booted 2.6.12 (compiled with HZ=100) with init=/bin/sh 3. left it idling on the shell prompt and checked CPU heatsink temperature (by hand) - only warm 4. rebooted the same kernel with acpi=off init=/bin/sh 5. left it idling on the shell prompt and checked CPU heatsink temperature - warm and slowly getting hot 6. rebooted the same kernel with init=/bin/sh again 7. left it idling on the shell prompt and checked CPU heatsink temperature - temperature went back to "warm" :) Result: ACPI C2 state reduces CPU consumption here - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 anything. I should have said: 99% of desktops with the capability to do ACPI sleep have at least one USB device attached (usually a mouse). [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power active state:C2 max_cstate: C8 bus master activity: states: C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[000] usage[00052470] *C2: type[C2] promotion[--] demotion[C1] latency[090] usage[02699149] This is PCPartner TXB820DS motherboard (Socket 7, i430TX) with 1998 Award BIOS and C-states seem to work fine. I've tested it in Windows 98 some time ago - the CPU is almost cold when idle with ACPI enabled and hot with ACPI disabled (that's partly caused by the fact that Windows 9x does not HLT the CPU when idle). With Pentium 100MHz in the socket and ACPI enabled, I could even touch the CPU (without heatsink) without burning my fingers. Ok I stand corrected, I had no idea there were machines that old where ACPI worked correctly in Linux. Do you see the same kind of heat reduction in Linux as Win98? What HZ value are you using, as the latency for entering C2 on your machine looks pretty substantial (Your C2 almost looks like a new machine's C3 state, which is supposedly the first level where substantial power savings occur on a new machines). I did some tests: 1. disconnected CPU fan power 2. booted 2.6.12 (compiled with HZ=100) with init=/bin/sh 3. left it idling on the shell prompt and checked CPU heatsink temperature (by hand) - only warm 4. rebooted the same kernel with acpi=off init=/bin/sh 5. left it idling on the shell prompt and checked CPU heatsink temperature - warm and slowly getting hot 6. rebooted the same kernel with init=/bin/sh again 7. left it idling on the shell prompt and checked CPU heatsink temperature - temperature went back to warm :) Result: ACPI C2 state reduces CPU consumption here - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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. With working C3 there are indeed differences: Voltage is 16.5 V HZ=100: ~460 mA => 7.59 W HZ=250: ~468 mA => 7.72 W HZ=1000: ~494 mA => 8.15 W 0.55W difference, wow. And that's 7% difference to overall system consumption. But it's totally meaning less isn't it? Disable the USB, there goes the kb/mouse, turn off the LCD you can't see anything, spin down the disk, you can't do i/o, and run the CPU in idle so you can't DO anything. At that point you might as well turn it off and save 100%. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 of "Get bent"? So you busy wait for 1msec, big deal. Which requires changing all those apps. I thought we tried not to break userspace with minor kernel version upgrades. Sounds like you were wrong. This whole thing is silly, I'm very aware of battery life issues, but in real ues we are talking about maybe 3% more battery life. People who are totally anal about it will build their own kernel, or use a vendor kernel with varioble tick rate, but saving <2BTU/hr is not going to let anyone buy a smaller A/C unit. The computer user gives off way more than that. I would leave it at 1k and push for variable tick, which should make everyone happy. Some machines can't even keep time properly with HZ=1000. If your workaround for broken hardware involves screwing over people with good hardware, it might be the wrong workaround. Official recommendation is likely "help us with CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ" or "get over it". IOW, "if you don't like it, get another distro, or compile your own kernel". Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 are irelevant; distros change them anyway. [But we probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that matches what 99% of users will use.] 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. Jim. Thank you Jim, Plauger's "law of least astonishment." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 are irelevant; distros change them anyway. [But we probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that matches what 99% of users will use.] 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. Jim. Thank you Jim, Plauger's law of least astonishment. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 of Get bent? So you busy wait for 1msec, big deal. Which requires changing all those apps. I thought we tried not to break userspace with minor kernel version upgrades. Sounds like you were wrong. This whole thing is silly, I'm very aware of battery life issues, but in real ues we are talking about maybe 3% more battery life. People who are totally anal about it will build their own kernel, or use a vendor kernel with varioble tick rate, but saving 2BTU/hr is not going to let anyone buy a smaller A/C unit. The computer user gives off way more than that. I would leave it at 1k and push for variable tick, which should make everyone happy. Some machines can't even keep time properly with HZ=1000. If your workaround for broken hardware involves screwing over people with good hardware, it might be the wrong workaround. Official recommendation is likely help us with CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ or get over it. IOW, if you don't like it, get another distro, or compile your own kernel. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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. With working C3 there are indeed differences: Voltage is 16.5 V HZ=100: ~460 mA = 7.59 W HZ=250: ~468 mA = 7.72 W HZ=1000: ~494 mA = 8.15 W 0.55W difference, wow. And that's 7% difference to overall system consumption. But it's totally meaning less isn't it? Disable the USB, there goes the kb/mouse, turn off the LCD you can't see anything, spin down the disk, you can't do i/o, and run the CPU in idle so you can't DO anything. At that point you might as well turn it off and save 100%. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 have said: 99% of desktops with the capability to do ACPI sleep have at least one USB device attached (usually a mouse). [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power active state:C2 max_cstate: C8 bus master activity: states: C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[000] usage[00052470] *C2: type[C2] promotion[--] demotion[C1] latency[090] usage[02699149] This is PCPartner TXB820DS motherboard (Socket 7, i430TX) with 1998 Award BIOS and C-states seem to work fine. I've tested it in Windows 98 some time ago - the CPU is almost cold when idle with ACPI enabled and hot with ACPI disabled (that's partly caused by the fact that Windows 9x does not HLT the CPU when idle). With Pentium 100MHz in the socket and ACPI enabled, I could even touch the CPU (without heatsink) without burning my fingers. Ok I stand corrected, I had no idea there were machines that old where ACPI worked correctly in Linux. Do you see the same kind of heat reduction in Linux as Win98? What HZ value are you using, as the latency for entering C2 on your machine looks pretty substantial (Your C2 almost looks like a new machine's C3 state, which is supposedly the first level where substantial power savings occur on a new machines). - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 have said: 99% of desktops with the capability to do ACPI sleep have at least one USB device attached (usually a mouse). [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power active state:C2 max_cstate: C8 bus master activity: states: C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[000] usage[00052470] *C2: type[C2] promotion[--] demotion[C1] latency[090] usage[02699149] This is PCPartner TXB820DS motherboard (Socket 7, i430TX) with 1998 Award BIOS and C-states seem to work fine. I've tested it in Windows 98 some time ago - the CPU is almost cold when idle with ACPI enabled and hot with ACPI disabled (that's partly caused by the fact that Windows 9x does not HLT the CPU when idle). With Pentium 100MHz in the socket and ACPI enabled, I could even touch the CPU (without heatsink) without burning my fingers. Ok I stand corrected, I had no idea there were machines that old where ACPI worked correctly in Linux. Do you see the same kind of heat reduction in Linux as Win98? What HZ value are you using, as the latency for entering C2 on your machine looks pretty substantial (Your C2 almost looks like a new machine's C3 state, which is supposedly the first level where substantial power savings occur on a new machines). - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 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 > > > > > > > > > > Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in > > > > the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually > > > > quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% > > > > figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the > > > > laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. > > > > > > Yes, laptops are mostly PS/2, which is why I only claimed a statistic > > > for desktops. Desktops pretty much all use USB mice now. If 250Hz were > > > only being sold as an option for laptops, we could leave it at that, yet > > > its being pushed as a default that's "good for everyone". For desktops > > > this is not currently true at all. By the time USB is fixed to do power > > > saving, we'll probably have a working tick-skipping patch which makes > > > the whole HZ argument moot. > > > > Most new laptops are moving away from PS/2 ports, for example my > > shining (literally) new Acer Ferrari 4005 only has USB2 ports for mice > > and keyboard inputs (unless in the optional pcie docking station maybe). > > So my suggestion would be to fix USB power management. > > > > You are talking about external ports. I am pretty sure that installed > keyboard and touchpad (or whattever pointing device it has) are plain > old PS/2. Well, yes.. But as I _never_ use the touchpad, it is quite necessary to keep USB enabled for me at any time as an external PS2 mouse is not possible. -HK - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 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 Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. Yes, laptops are mostly PS/2, which is why I only claimed a statistic for desktops. Desktops pretty much all use USB mice now. If 250Hz were only being sold as an option for laptops, we could leave it at that, yet its being pushed as a default that's good for everyone. For desktops this is not currently true at all. By the time USB is fixed to do power saving, we'll probably have a working tick-skipping patch which makes the whole HZ argument moot. Most new laptops are moving away from PS/2 ports, for example my shining (literally) new Acer Ferrari 4005 only has USB2 ports for mice and keyboard inputs (unless in the optional pcie docking station maybe). So my suggestion would be to fix USB power management. You are talking about external ports. I am pretty sure that installed keyboard and touchpad (or whattever pointing device it has) are plain old PS/2. Well, yes.. But as I _never_ use the touchpad, it is quite necessary to keep USB enabled for me at any time as an external PS2 mouse is not possible. -HK - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 break > > on 2.6.13. > > > > Lee > > > > But then isn't that app broken? What if the user running it selects > something other than HZ=1000? Then they changed the setting from the defaults, so they get what they deserve. If kernel defaults are irrelevant, the only issue is whether or not we choose to violate the principle of least surprise for people who run kernel.org kernels. The technical merits of different HZ settings are completely irrelevant. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 if the user running it selects something other than HZ=1000? Stephen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
(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 there isn't any motion and then wakeup later. By the time we properly support USB suspend, it won't matter because the dynamic tick patch will likely have been integrated. An argument for why we should change a value in the future is pointless when the question is what the value should be right now. 4.4% savings may not be much, but these things do add up. A 300% increase in minimum sleep latency adds up quite quickly. The point that people joining this thread keep missing is that we're making a change that: (a) offers a small benefit to laptop users (b) messes up other uses such as video (c) is likely to be completely obsolete by 2.6.14 For a laptop's workload, I think this is worth it. Good, so on your laptop go choose 100Hz. You already have to configure your kernel to change values from their defaults anyway, otherwise you won't see any of that 4.4% savings. However, please don't screw up video and interactivity (1) for everyone who uses default values on their desktops in order to get your savings. (1) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/319124/ Rather like the famous gcc 2.96, this is something that will confuse users for some time to come. Just about every video app will need an FAQ entry to say why 2.6.13 doesn't work as well and drops frames while 2.6.(x!=13) works just fine. Unless of course distros read this thread and decide not to pick up this change; That I guess is the only reason I'm still posting. Now as Lee said, please let this thread die. We need to go work on dyntick and test it on as much hardware as possible and try to uncover any lurking bugs. If you care about saving power or multimedia, you should test it too (think ~10% savings rather than 4.4%). - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- 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% 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 disturbing AV benchmark results (1). As a result, some of > us > > don't think 250HZ is a great tradeoff to make > _for_the_default_value_. > Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in > the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually > quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% > figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the > laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. > > - Ted 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 there isn't any motion and then wakeup later. 4.4% savings may not be much, but these things do add up. For a laptop's workload, I think this is worth it. Thanks, Adam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 period. A user will see zero power savings if they > > >>have a USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can > > > > > > > Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in > > > the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually > > > quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% > > > figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the > > > laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. > > > > Yes, laptops are mostly PS/2, which is why I only claimed a statistic > > for desktops. Desktops pretty much all use USB mice now. If 250Hz were > > only being sold as an option for laptops, we could leave it at that, yet > > its being pushed as a default that's "good for everyone". For desktops > > this is not currently true at all. By the time USB is fixed to do power > > saving, we'll probably have a working tick-skipping patch which makes > > the whole HZ argument moot. > > Most new laptops are moving away from PS/2 ports, for example my > shining (literally) new Acer Ferrari 4005 only has USB2 ports for mice > and keyboard inputs (unless in the optional pcie docking station maybe). > So my suggestion would be to fix USB power management. > You are talking about external ports. I am pretty sure that installed keyboard and touchpad (or whattever pointing device it has) are plain old PS/2. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can > > > > Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in > > the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually > > quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% > > figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the > > laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. > > Yes, laptops are mostly PS/2, which is why I only claimed a statistic > for desktops. Desktops pretty much all use USB mice now. If 250Hz were > only being sold as an option for laptops, we could leave it at that, yet > its being pushed as a default that's "good for everyone". For desktops > this is not currently true at all. By the time USB is fixed to do power > saving, we'll probably have a working tick-skipping patch which makes > the whole HZ argument moot. Most new laptops are moving away from PS/2 ports, for example my shining (literally) new Acer Ferrari 4005 only has USB2 ports for mice and keyboard inputs (unless in the optional pcie docking station maybe). So my suggestion would be to fix USB power management. The mouse that comes with the ferrari 4005 is actually a bluetooth mouse, but for some reason it is the worst thing I've ever used. So, what I'm currently using is a usb -> ps/2 converter. I can't imagine this to be any good for power consumption at all. (OT:Bad mouse) -It will overcharge battery so the whole mouse becomes HOT -Occasionally it will stop working for ~5sec -The optical sensor takes a while to focus on the pad when lifted and put down again. BTW: The laptop itself is _really_ good, just the mouse is a total failure. -HK - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 basically a laptop issue. > > Desktops? Screw desktops. (Unless of course you're one of those > environmental friendly guys, but then you probably are simply too cheap > to buy a SUV too!) Not fully true. To many desktop people power control means noise control. And that is important. Regards Oliver - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 basically a laptop issue. Desktops? Screw desktops. (Unless of course you're one of those environmental friendly guys, but then you probably are simply too cheap to buy a SUV too!) Not fully true. To many desktop people power control means noise control. And that is important. Regards Oliver - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. Yes, laptops are mostly PS/2, which is why I only claimed a statistic for desktops. Desktops pretty much all use USB mice now. If 250Hz were only being sold as an option for laptops, we could leave it at that, yet its being pushed as a default that's good for everyone. For desktops this is not currently true at all. By the time USB is fixed to do power saving, we'll probably have a working tick-skipping patch which makes the whole HZ argument moot. Most new laptops are moving away from PS/2 ports, for example my shining (literally) new Acer Ferrari 4005 only has USB2 ports for mice and keyboard inputs (unless in the optional pcie docking station maybe). So my suggestion would be to fix USB power management. The mouse that comes with the ferrari 4005 is actually a bluetooth mouse, but for some reason it is the worst thing I've ever used. So, what I'm currently using is a usb - ps/2 converter. I can't imagine this to be any good for power consumption at all. (OT:Bad mouse) -It will overcharge battery so the whole mouse becomes HOT -Occasionally it will stop working for ~5sec -The optical sensor takes a while to focus on the pad when lifted and put down again. BTW: The laptop itself is _really_ good, just the mouse is a total failure. -HK - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 period. A user will see zero power savings if they have a USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. Yes, laptops are mostly PS/2, which is why I only claimed a statistic for desktops. Desktops pretty much all use USB mice now. If 250Hz were only being sold as an option for laptops, we could leave it at that, yet its being pushed as a default that's good for everyone. For desktops this is not currently true at all. By the time USB is fixed to do power saving, we'll probably have a working tick-skipping patch which makes the whole HZ argument moot. Most new laptops are moving away from PS/2 ports, for example my shining (literally) new Acer Ferrari 4005 only has USB2 ports for mice and keyboard inputs (unless in the optional pcie docking station maybe). So my suggestion would be to fix USB power management. You are talking about external ports. I am pretty sure that installed keyboard and touchpad (or whattever pointing device it has) are plain old PS/2. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- 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% 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 disturbing AV benchmark results (1). As a result, some of us don't think 250HZ is a great tradeoff to make _for_the_default_value_. Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. - Ted 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 there isn't any motion and then wakeup later. 4.4% savings may not be much, but these things do add up. For a laptop's workload, I think this is worth it. Thanks, Adam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
(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 there isn't any motion and then wakeup later. By the time we properly support USB suspend, it won't matter because the dynamic tick patch will likely have been integrated. An argument for why we should change a value in the future is pointless when the question is what the value should be right now. 4.4% savings may not be much, but these things do add up. A 300% increase in minimum sleep latency adds up quite quickly. The point that people joining this thread keep missing is that we're making a change that: (a) offers a small benefit to laptop users (b) messes up other uses such as video (c) is likely to be completely obsolete by 2.6.14 For a laptop's workload, I think this is worth it. Good, so on your laptop go choose 100Hz. You already have to configure your kernel to change values from their defaults anyway, otherwise you won't see any of that 4.4% savings. However, please don't screw up video and interactivity (1) for everyone who uses default values on their desktops in order to get your savings. (1) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/319124/ Rather like the famous gcc 2.96, this is something that will confuse users for some time to come. Just about every video app will need an FAQ entry to say why 2.6.13 doesn't work as well and drops frames while 2.6.(x!=13) works just fine. Unless of course distros read this thread and decide not to pick up this change; That I guess is the only reason I'm still posting. Now as Lee said, please let this thread die. We need to go work on dyntick and test it on as much hardware as possible and try to uncover any lurking bugs. If you care about saving power or multimedia, you should test it too (think ~10% savings rather than 4.4%). - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 if the user running it selects something other than HZ=1000? Stephen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 break on 2.6.13. Lee But then isn't that app broken? What if the user running it selects something other than HZ=1000? Then they changed the setting from the defaults, so they get what they deserve. If kernel defaults are irrelevant, the only issue is whether or not we choose to violate the principle of least surprise for people who run kernel.org kernels. The technical merits of different HZ settings are completely irrelevant. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 minutes of idle time. > > Oh well, I'll shut up, I've already demonstrated a complete ignorance of > new hardware. Lee, that is a very impressive statement to make in public, and not many people are capable of admitting that they were wrong, or that their focus has been too narrow. It's great to see this discussion has proven instructing to you. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- High Availability & Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 trying to save power on the desktop, just that it doesn't seem to be a big concern on LKML. 100% of the arguments I've heard (before posting the above comment) were from the laptop perspective. Now that it's clear that dynamic tick will be ready soon, this thread has outlived its usefulness, I'd like to let it die. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 environment etc. > > > Folkert van Heusden Computers are nearly 100% efficient as heaters. A computer that consumes 100 watts of power puts out a few milliwatts over a network connection. The rest is heat. For every watt of heat, it takes about 1/8th watt to carry the heat away with modern air-conditioners. So, just my 100 watt "heater" will cost me about US$18.00 per month if I leave it on continuously. I read somewhere, I think in "Communications", that at any one time there are 40 million personal computers "connected" to the Internet. That's 40,000,000 * 18.00 = US$720,000,000.00 per month being consumed, plus the 720,000,000 / 8 = US$90,000,000 to keep them cool. It's a MONEY problem, something everybody can understand. It's not an environmental problem at all. The environment can certainly sink the 40,000,000 * 100 = 4,000,000,000 (4 billion) watts of power. That's about the sun's energy falling on a 10 km^2 area of land near the equator, a drop in the bucket. Ideally, a computer that's not doing any work should not consume any power. However, even if you use static RAM and a low-power CPU, computers have always been power sinks. Recent GHz "advances" have upped the power loss to unprecedented amounts. Anything that can help ameliorate the problem will certainly be appreciated by "the masses". Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. . I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot : The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
> > > 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 -- Auto te koop, zie: http://www.vanheusden.com/daihatsu.php Get your PGP/GPG key signed at www.biglumber.com! Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 Windows) so will run as cool as 31C when > idle (with the CPUIdle utility). Most of the heat comes from the hard > drives anyway, but that's a different story. > > This seems pretty cool to me, how much more power does frequency scaling > save over that, assuming you suspend after 5-10 minutes of inactivity > anyway? I am a gentoo user an compile a lot of things. I also use freq scaling with my Athlon XP on nforce2 with cpu disconnect enabled. idle at ~1400MHz: ~135 WATT used by system full load at ~1400MHz: ~150 WATT full load at ~2200MHz: ~230 WATT So, if I don't need something very quickly, so can guess that I prefer to do compiling at low clock speeds... (Suspend won't work for me.) Cheers, Prakash signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 31C when idle (with the CPUIdle utility). Most of the heat comes from the hard drives anyway, but that's a different story. This seems pretty cool to me, how much more power does frequency scaling save over that, assuming you suspend after 5-10 minutes of inactivity anyway? Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 desktops with the capability to do ACPI sleep have at least one USB device attached (usually a mouse). [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power active state:C2 max_cstate: C8 bus master activity: states: C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[000] usage[00052470] *C2: type[C2] promotion[--] demotion[C1] latency[090] usage[02699149] This is PCPartner TXB820DS motherboard (Socket 7, i430TX) with 1998 Award BIOS and C-states seem to work fine. I've tested it in Windows 98 some time ago - the CPU is almost cold when idle with ACPI enabled and hot with ACPI disabled (that's partly caused by the fact that Windows 9x does not HLT the CPU when idle). With Pentium 100MHz in the socket and ACPI enabled, I could even touch the CPU (without heatsink) without burning my fingers. -- Ondrej Zary - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 capability to do ACPI sleep have at least one USB device attached (usually a mouse). I do like saving power, which is why I run cpu frequency scaling on every machine I have that supports it. I'm happy because it does its savings without negatively impacting latency or high-load performance. By 2.6.14 dyntick should give us the same thing for HZ, which is why I think changing the maximum value now doesn't make sense. - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 more than half that, is the cooling used to remove the heat generated by the machines. the rest is the machines themselves. Those guys want maximum cycles per watt. One way of getting there is using less watts when we don't use all cycles. This bring down power consumption, which directly brings down heat production, which brings down A/C needs. Why pay for power you don't need to use. Why pay for a ups thats bigger then it has to be. Why pay for more hvac then you need. Even now an idle rack of dual opterons 244s is something like 4-5kw, busy is more like 6.8-8kw. Everyone wants to save power. or lower their costs, or both. -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 > > >> ;-). > > >> > > > > > > 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 days. > > VMware also uses /dev/rtc. So is NTP, which is needed when time drifts. > But they can't use /dev/rtc simultanously, as it's single-open device. > So running ntpd denies vmware and mplayer access to RTC. Bummer. > You could work around this to some extent by using the ALSA timer API with the RTC timer. I think this allows multiple open by setting the RTC to tick based on the lowest common denominator. It won't help vmware and NTP though. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 desktop anyway? > > This is basically a laptop issue. > > > 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 minutes of idle time. Oh well, I'll shut up, I've already demonstrated a complete ignorance of new hardware. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 consumption matters to server, desktop, and laptop. Assuming this is a laptop issue is wildly incorrect. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 remain at > 1000 so as to not violate the principle of least surprise for people who > run "make oldconfig". Why is this so hard for people to understand? Because people who run "make oldconfig" are expected to have some clue about how to read help texts. Please get some, thanks. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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. (Unless of course you're one of those environmental friendly guys, but then you probably are simply too cheap to buy a SUV too!) But rather think "data center". Those guys want maximum cycles per watt. One way of getting there is using less watts when we don't use all cycles. This bring down power consumption, which directly brings down heat production, which brings down A/C needs. Everyone wants to save power. -- High Availability & Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 issue. Heat has become for Prescott, and will be for every upcoming chipset of the future, a major issue. So yes it will be relevant to everyone. Cheers, Con - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 of least surprise for people who run "make oldconfig". Why is this so hard for people to understand? Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 issue. Eh yes, very much. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 of that, we can > Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in > the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually > quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% > figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the > laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. Yes, laptops are mostly PS/2, which is why I only claimed a statistic for desktops. Desktops pretty much all use USB mice now. If 250Hz were only being sold as an option for laptops, we could leave it at that, yet its being pushed as a default that's "good for everyone". For desktops this is not currently true at all. By the time USB is fixed to do power saving, we'll probably have a working tick-skipping patch which makes the whole HZ argument moot. - Jim Bruce Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old systems that don't. Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 something like it will get integrated > into 2.6.14. If it gets in, the default HZ should go back up to 1000. > In that case why decrease it for exactly one patchlevel? > > As an app programmer, it'd be nice not to have to support 2.6.13 > differently from 2.6.(x!=13). For my app, busy waiting means a ~12% > load increase for 2.6.13 compared to (probably) all other 2.6 kernel > versions. That's certainly violating the principle of least surprise. > Up to now, it was easy enough to tell people "upgrade from 2.4.x and > it'll work better". Now it gets more complicated. BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not as siple as "go 2.6"... Pavel -- teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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, it's a very boring gray (or a very sadening bloody > >red; but I hope we won't come to that point just because of a silly > >argument on lkml...) > > 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 disturbing AV benchmark results (1). As a result, some of us > don't think 250HZ is a great tradeoff to make > _for_the_default_value_. 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. > From what I can tell, tick skipping works fine right now, it just needs > some cleanup. Thus I'd expect something like it will get integrated > into 2.6.14. If it gets in, the default HZ should go back up to 1000. > In that case why decrease it for exactly one patchlevel? I am afraid that CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ will be ready for 2.6.14... Pavel -- teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 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 days. VMware also uses /dev/rtc. So is NTP, which is needed when time drifts. But they can't use /dev/rtc simultanously, as it's single-open device. So running ntpd denies vmware and mplayer access to RTC. Bummer. -- Tomasz TorczThere exists no separation between gods and men: [EMAIL PROTECTED] one blends softly casual into the other. pgprmUYNzxKTG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 > installations are laptops? Bullshit. I'm not a laptop user, yet I'm using cpufreq on my Sempron 2500+. cpufreq-nforce2 switching between 1,23 and 1,75 GHz makes 8-10 Celsius' degrees difference on CPU temperature. -- Tomasz TorczThere exists no separation between gods and men: [EMAIL PROTECTED] one blends softly casual into the other. pgprxqqczRkKm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
* 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 demonstration of my free will I'm going to go > test dyntick on my VIA Epia board... Yeah, I've been running dyntick on my VIA Epia home server for a while now: # uname -r 2.6.12-rc4 # uptime 23:39:46 up 76 days, 9:10, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 # pmstats 5 Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 0HZ Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 33HZ Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 32HZ Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 34HZ Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 35HZ My server is mostly idle, and the average HZ is around 35HZ. This is still with the max HZ set to 1000. With dyntick, the max HZ should be set to something that provides best performance under heavy load on the system. Or least latency or whatever. But AFAIK, it does not make any sense to limit the max HZ because of power savings. That's just a bad compromise. Regards, Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
* 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 demonstration of my free will I'm going to go test dyntick on my VIA Epia board... Yeah, I've been running dyntick on my VIA Epia home server for a while now: # uname -r 2.6.12-rc4 # uptime 23:39:46 up 76 days, 9:10, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 # pmstats 5 Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 0HZ Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 33HZ Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 32HZ Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 34HZ Current: 0mA Voltage: 0.00mV Power: 0.00W 0mAh Time: 00:00h Ticks: 35HZ My server is mostly idle, and the average HZ is around 35HZ. This is still with the max HZ set to 1000. With dyntick, the max HZ should be set to something that provides best performance under heavy load on the system. Or least latency or whatever. But AFAIK, it does not make any sense to limit the max HZ because of power savings. That's just a bad compromise. Regards, Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 installations are laptops? Bullshit. I'm not a laptop user, yet I'm using cpufreq on my Sempron 2500+. cpufreq-nforce2 switching between 1,23 and 1,75 GHz makes 8-10 Celsius' degrees difference on CPU temperature. -- Tomasz TorczThere exists no separation between gods and men: [EMAIL PROTECTED] one blends softly casual into the other. pgprxqqczRkKm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 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 days. VMware also uses /dev/rtc. So is NTP, which is needed when time drifts. But they can't use /dev/rtc simultanously, as it's single-open device. So running ntpd denies vmware and mplayer access to RTC. Bummer. -- Tomasz TorczThere exists no separation between gods and men: [EMAIL PROTECTED] one blends softly casual into the other. pgprmUYNzxKTG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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, it's a very boring gray (or a very sadening bloody red; but I hope we won't come to that point just because of a silly argument on lkml...) 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 disturbing AV benchmark results (1). As a result, some of us don't think 250HZ is a great tradeoff to make _for_the_default_value_. 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. From what I can tell, tick skipping works fine right now, it just needs some cleanup. Thus I'd expect something like it will get integrated into 2.6.14. If it gets in, the default HZ should go back up to 1000. In that case why decrease it for exactly one patchlevel? I am afraid that CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ will be ready for 2.6.14... Pavel -- teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 something like it will get integrated into 2.6.14. If it gets in, the default HZ should go back up to 1000. In that case why decrease it for exactly one patchlevel? As an app programmer, it'd be nice not to have to support 2.6.13 differently from 2.6.(x!=13). For my app, busy waiting means a ~12% load increase for 2.6.13 compared to (probably) all other 2.6 kernel versions. That's certainly violating the principle of least surprise. Up to now, it was easy enough to tell people upgrade from 2.4.x and it'll work better. Now it gets more complicated. BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not as siple as go 2.6... Pavel -- teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 of that, we can Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. Yes, laptops are mostly PS/2, which is why I only claimed a statistic for desktops. Desktops pretty much all use USB mice now. If 250Hz were only being sold as an option for laptops, we could leave it at that, yet its being pushed as a default that's good for everyone. For desktops this is not currently true at all. By the time USB is fixed to do power saving, we'll probably have a working tick-skipping patch which makes the whole HZ argument moot. - Jim Bruce Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old systems that don't. Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 issue. Eh yes, very much. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 of least surprise for people who run make oldconfig. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 issue. Heat has become for Prescott, and will be for every upcoming chipset of the future, a major issue. So yes it will be relevant to everyone. Cheers, Con - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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. (Unless of course you're one of those environmental friendly guys, but then you probably are simply too cheap to buy a SUV too!) But rather think data center. Those guys want maximum cycles per watt. One way of getting there is using less watts when we don't use all cycles. This bring down power consumption, which directly brings down heat production, which brings down A/C needs. Everyone wants to save power. -- High Availability Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 remain at 1000 so as to not violate the principle of least surprise for people who run make oldconfig. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Because people who run make oldconfig are expected to have some clue about how to read help texts. Please get some, thanks. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 consumption matters to server, desktop, and laptop. Assuming this is a laptop issue is wildly incorrect. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 desktop anyway? This is basically a laptop issue. 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 minutes of idle time. Oh well, I'll shut up, I've already demonstrated a complete ignorance of new hardware. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 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 days. VMware also uses /dev/rtc. So is NTP, which is needed when time drifts. But they can't use /dev/rtc simultanously, as it's single-open device. So running ntpd denies vmware and mplayer access to RTC. Bummer. You could work around this to some extent by using the ALSA timer API with the RTC timer. I think this allows multiple open by setting the RTC to tick based on the lowest common denominator. It won't help vmware and NTP though. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 more than half that, is the cooling used to remove the heat generated by the machines. the rest is the machines themselves. Those guys want maximum cycles per watt. One way of getting there is using less watts when we don't use all cycles. This bring down power consumption, which directly brings down heat production, which brings down A/C needs. Why pay for power you don't need to use. Why pay for a ups thats bigger then it has to be. Why pay for more hvac then you need. Even now an idle rack of dual opterons 244s is something like 4-5kw, busy is more like 6.8-8kw. Everyone wants to save power. or lower their costs, or both. -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 capability to do ACPI sleep have at least one USB device attached (usually a mouse). I do like saving power, which is why I run cpu frequency scaling on every machine I have that supports it. I'm happy because it does its savings without negatively impacting latency or high-load performance. By 2.6.14 dyntick should give us the same thing for HZ, which is why I think changing the maximum value now doesn't make sense. - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 desktops with the capability to do ACPI sleep have at least one USB device attached (usually a mouse). [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power active state:C2 max_cstate: C8 bus master activity: states: C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[000] usage[00052470] *C2: type[C2] promotion[--] demotion[C1] latency[090] usage[02699149] This is PCPartner TXB820DS motherboard (Socket 7, i430TX) with 1998 Award BIOS and C-states seem to work fine. I've tested it in Windows 98 some time ago - the CPU is almost cold when idle with ACPI enabled and hot with ACPI disabled (that's partly caused by the fact that Windows 9x does not HLT the CPU when idle). With Pentium 100MHz in the socket and ACPI enabled, I could even touch the CPU (without heatsink) without burning my fingers. -- Ondrej Zary - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 31C when idle (with the CPUIdle utility). Most of the heat comes from the hard drives anyway, but that's a different story. This seems pretty cool to me, how much more power does frequency scaling save over that, assuming you suspend after 5-10 minutes of inactivity anyway? Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 Windows) so will run as cool as 31C when idle (with the CPUIdle utility). Most of the heat comes from the hard drives anyway, but that's a different story. This seems pretty cool to me, how much more power does frequency scaling save over that, assuming you suspend after 5-10 minutes of inactivity anyway? I am a gentoo user an compile a lot of things. I also use freq scaling with my Athlon XP on nforce2 with cpu disconnect enabled. idle at ~1400MHz: ~135 WATT used by system full load at ~1400MHz: ~150 WATT full load at ~2200MHz: ~230 WATT So, if I don't need something very quickly, so can guess that I prefer to do compiling at low clock speeds... (Suspend won't work for me.) Cheers, Prakash signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 -- Auto te koop, zie: http://www.vanheusden.com/daihatsu.php Get your PGP/GPG key signed at www.biglumber.com! Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 environment etc. Folkert van Heusden Computers are nearly 100% efficient as heaters. A computer that consumes 100 watts of power puts out a few milliwatts over a network connection. The rest is heat. For every watt of heat, it takes about 1/8th watt to carry the heat away with modern air-conditioners. So, just my 100 watt heater will cost me about US$18.00 per month if I leave it on continuously. I read somewhere, I think in Communications, that at any one time there are 40 million personal computers connected to the Internet. That's 40,000,000 * 18.00 = US$720,000,000.00 per month being consumed, plus the 720,000,000 / 8 = US$90,000,000 to keep them cool. It's a MONEY problem, something everybody can understand. It's not an environmental problem at all. The environment can certainly sink the 40,000,000 * 100 = 4,000,000,000 (4 billion) watts of power. That's about the sun's energy falling on a 10 km^2 area of land near the equator, a drop in the bucket. Ideally, a computer that's not doing any work should not consume any power. However, even if you use static RAM and a low-power CPU, computers have always been power sinks. Recent GHz advances have upped the power loss to unprecedented amounts. Anything that can help ameliorate the problem will certainly be appreciated by the masses. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. . I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot : The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 trying to save power on the desktop, just that it doesn't seem to be a big concern on LKML. 100% of the arguments I've heard (before posting the above comment) were from the laptop perspective. Now that it's clear that dynamic tick will be ready soon, this thread has outlived its usefulness, I'd like to let it die. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 minutes of idle time. Oh well, I'll shut up, I've already demonstrated a complete ignorance of new hardware. Lee, that is a very impressive statement to make in public, and not many people are capable of admitting that they were wrong, or that their focus has been too narrow. It's great to see this discussion has proven instructing to you. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brée [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- High Availability Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 > Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in > the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually > quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% > figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the > laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. Yes, laptops are mostly PS/2, which is why I only claimed a statistic for desktops. Desktops pretty much all use USB mice now. If 250Hz were only being sold as an option for laptops, we could leave it at that, yet its being pushed as a default that's "good for everyone". For desktops this is not currently true at all. By the time USB is fixed to do power saving, we'll probably have a working tick-skipping patch which makes the whole HZ argument moot. - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
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% 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 disturbing AV benchmark results (1). As a result, some of us > don't think 250HZ is a great tradeoff to make _for_the_default_value_. Most laptops (including mine, a Thinkpad T40) use a PS/2 mouse. So in the places where power consumption savins matters most, it's usually quite possible to function without needing any USB devices. The 90% figure isn't at all right; in fact, it may be that over 90% of the laptops still use PS/2 mice and keyboards. - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 the KDE sound system > control module. Just to verify that this option works: 1. Using a non hardware mixing device intel8x0, set it to release the sound device after 5 seconds. 2. In 10 seconds, use aplay or xmms (in ALSA mode, not artsd) to play a sound. 3. Then, while the sound is playing, do something that would make KDE play a sound. #2 should fail with -EBUSY and you should hear the #3 sound. If #2 succeeds and #3 fails then KDE is broken IMHO. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 they overwhelmingly show that 250HZ WILL hurt interactivity and WILL NOT save anyone any power in real life. But now the 250HZ people have changed their position to "yes, we KNOW we're screwing over multimedia users for the sake of laptop users, and we DON'T CARE about your numbers." Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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, alsa-lib and .asoundrc > setups, including me, mplayer through dmix is one jitter-fest, mplayer > straight > to the alsa pcm device works better, but of course using the oss emulation > seems to work best of all :-) Because mplayer's ALSA code is broken. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 it to work right. > > If it was long ago, you probably want to try again and file a bug > report if still broken. I may do that, but I don't need ACPI on the machine so I've just always disabled it and figured it was a BIOS problem that won't be fixed since there have been no BIOS updates for this board since '03. > Pavel Jim. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 explain our position calmly enough below. 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, it's a very boring gray (or a very sadening bloody red; but I hope we won't come to that point just because of a silly argument on lkml...) 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 disturbing AV benchmark results (1). As a result, some of us don't think 250HZ is a great tradeoff to make _for_the_default_value_. (1) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/319124/ 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 something like it will get integrated into 2.6.14. If it gets in, the default HZ should go back up to 1000. In that case why decrease it for exactly one patchlevel? As an app programmer, it'd be nice not to have to support 2.6.13 differently from 2.6.(x!=13). For my app, busy waiting means a ~12% load increase for 2.6.13 compared to (probably) all other 2.6 kernel versions. That's certainly violating the principle of least surprise. Up to now, it was easy enough to tell people "upgrade from 2.4.x and it'll work better". Now it gets more complicated. 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 demonstration of my free will I'm going to go test dyntick on my VIA Epia board... - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 days. 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, alsa-lib and .asoundrc setups, including me, mplayer through dmix is one jitter-fest, mplayer straight to the alsa pcm device works better, but of course using the oss emulation seems to work best of all :-) I never noticed any difference during 2.4 between using rtc and not using rtc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get > bent"? Calm down. 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, it's a very boring gray (or a very sadening bloody red; but I hope we won't come to that point just because of a silly argument on lkml...) 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 =) Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 busy wait for 1msec, big deal. > > Which requires changing all those apps. ...which you have to do anyway for 2.4 compatibility. Pavel -- if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 machine do not even boot > > without that. Default config should be usefull; set ACPI off, and > > you'll not be able to even power machine down. > > 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 it to work right. If it was long ago, you probably want to try again and file a bug report if still broken. Pavel -- if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 lines of "Get > bent"? MPlayer is using /dev/rtc and was running smooth for me since the good old 2.4 days. -- Stefan Seyfried - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 Get bent? MPlayer is using /dev/rtc and was running smooth for me since the good old 2.4 days. -- Stefan Seyfried - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 machine do not even boot without that. Default config should be usefull; set ACPI off, and you'll not be able to even power machine down. 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 it to work right. If it was long ago, you probably want to try again and file a bug report if still broken. Pavel -- if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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. Which requires changing all those apps. ...which you have to do anyway for 2.4 compatibility. Pavel -- if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 resolution is? Something along the lines of Get bent? Calm down. 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, it's a very boring gray (or a very sadening bloody red; but I hope we won't come to that point just because of a silly argument on lkml...) 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 =) Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 days. 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, alsa-lib and .asoundrc setups, including me, mplayer through dmix is one jitter-fest, mplayer straight to the alsa pcm device works better, but of course using the oss emulation seems to work best of all :-) I never noticed any difference during 2.4 between using rtc and not using rtc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 explain our position calmly enough below. 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, it's a very boring gray (or a very sadening bloody red; but I hope we won't come to that point just because of a silly argument on lkml...) 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 disturbing AV benchmark results (1). As a result, some of us don't think 250HZ is a great tradeoff to make _for_the_default_value_. (1) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/319124/ 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 something like it will get integrated into 2.6.14. If it gets in, the default HZ should go back up to 1000. In that case why decrease it for exactly one patchlevel? As an app programmer, it'd be nice not to have to support 2.6.13 differently from 2.6.(x!=13). For my app, busy waiting means a ~12% load increase for 2.6.13 compared to (probably) all other 2.6 kernel versions. That's certainly violating the principle of least surprise. Up to now, it was easy enough to tell people upgrade from 2.4.x and it'll work better. Now it gets more complicated. 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 demonstration of my free will I'm going to go test dyntick on my VIA Epia board... - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 it to work right. If it was long ago, you probably want to try again and file a bug report if still broken. I may do that, but I don't need ACPI on the machine so I've just always disabled it and figured it was a BIOS problem that won't be fixed since there have been no BIOS updates for this board since '03. Pavel Jim. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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, alsa-lib and .asoundrc setups, including me, mplayer through dmix is one jitter-fest, mplayer straight to the alsa pcm device works better, but of course using the oss emulation seems to work best of all :-) Because mplayer's ALSA code is broken. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 they overwhelmingly show that 250HZ WILL hurt interactivity and WILL NOT save anyone any power in real life. But now the 250HZ people have changed their position to yes, we KNOW we're screwing over multimedia users for the sake of laptop users, and we DON'T CARE about your numbers. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
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 the KDE sound system control module. Just to verify that this option works: 1. Using a non hardware mixing device intel8x0, set it to release the sound device after 5 seconds. 2. In 10 seconds, use aplay or xmms (in ALSA mode, not artsd) to play a sound. 3. Then, while the sound is playing, do something that would make KDE play a sound. #2 should fail with -EBUSY and you should hear the #3 sound. If #2 succeeds and #3 fails then KDE is broken IMHO. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
