Re: [PATCH 1/3]cpuidle take2: Core cpuidle infrastructure

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Dave Jones
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 11:59 pm

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:47:55PM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:

 > >I played with this a little, and got puzzled.
 > >My quad core box used exactly the same amount of power whether the
 > >'ladder' governer was loaded & in use or not.  In both situations
 > >it was exactly the same as a vanilla 2.6.20
 > >
 > >I'd have expected it to use more until I loaded up 'ladder' to bring it
 > >on par featurewise with 2.6.20.  What did I miss?
 > 
 > Quad core what platform?

Glenwood

 > How many C-states are supported in this platform?

Garg, only C1.  That explains a lot.

 > Current ladder is mostly like Policy embedded in ACPI today. But, Adam
 > has
 > been working on different policies that we want to experiment with as we
 > go along.

ok.

		Dave


-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 1/3]cpuidle take2: Core cpuidle infrastructure, Venkatesh Pallipadi, (Thu Feb 22, 2:52 pm)
RE: [PATCH 1/3]cpuidle take2: Core cpuidle infrastructure, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Tue Feb 27, 9:47 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/3]cpuidle take2: Core cpuidle infrastructure, Dave Jones, (Tue Feb 27, 11:59 pm)