[arch-dev-public] [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0.6-2

[Thomas Bächler]

Am 09.10.2011 06:22, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
> Could you point me to some more info about this (I couldn't find any
> bug reports)?

If I remember right, if you load p4-clockmod and try to set ondemand as
governor, cpufreq will refuse the to change the governor. On i686, linux
even refuses to build the performance governor as a module, even if it
is not the default.

> I'm interested in following up on it so we can one day
> move to ondemand by default.

There is absolutely no reason for that.

> For what it's worth, fedora and opensuse
> have been using ondemand for some time. Is it known why we are seeing
> problems and they are not?

I'm not sure if we would actually see any problems, it just seemed like
a bad idea to me.

> My understanding was that ondemand is recommended by upstream
> (http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/power/good_practices.html), and that
> it should automatically fall back to performance if the HW latencies
> are too high. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would hope so - but at least on x86_64, the performance governor might
be unavailable, so there is nothing to fall back to.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20111009/6c42a06e/attachment.asc>