On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:32:26PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
quoted text
> I like this one better.  Slow down the poll interval just a little so
> it's not so hysterical, but also go straight to 100.  If you need CPU,
> you need CPU.  It still backs down slowly, but that's just to prevent
> getting caught in slow mode again. 

Me too - my laptop is (as expected) more responsive than with the other
diff.  Playing a video, however, results in

going up 100
going down 90
going down 80
going up 100
going down 90
going down 80
going down 70
going up 100
going down 90
going down 80
going up 100
going down 90
going up 100
going down 90
going down 80
going down 70
going down 60
...

which is not exactly bad (the video is played just fine), but I wonder
whether it is as efficient battery-wise as converging to e.g. 60-70 over
time.  It is a hard one to wrap one's head around, and I tend to believe
that the automatic throttling is better than fixing/converging the
performance.  When there is work to be done, it needs to be done.  Doing
it fast with higher power usage should be roughly the same as doing it
slow with less power usage, however, the former case seems more
responsive to the user (not relevant for the video example).

My two cents.  Thanks again.

Martin