Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:23:04 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |