Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:25:30 +0000 (GMT) | From | William Heimbigner <> | Subject | Re: cpufreq default governor |
| |
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > On 24/04/07, William Heimbigner <icxcnika@mar.tar.cc> wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote: >> >> > On 24/04/07, William Heimbigner <icxcnika@mar.tar.cc> wrote: >> > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi William, >> > > > >> > > > On 24/04/07, William Heimbigner <icxcnika@mar.tar.cc> wrote: >> > > > > Question: is there some reason that kconfig does not allow for >> > > > > default >> > > > > governors of conservative/ondemand/powersave? >> > > > >> > > > Performance? >> > > > >> > > > > I'm not aware of any reason why one of those governors could not >> > > > > be >> > > > > used >> > > > > as default. >> > > > >> > > > My hardware doesn't work properly with ondemand governor. I hear >> > > > strange noises when frequency is changed. >> > > > >> > > >> > > That doesn't mean it isn't working, though. >> > >> > I didn't say that cpufreq ondemand is broken. It's a hardware problem. >> > >> > > I here weird noises if the cpu >> > > is clocked anywhere from 333MHz to 1GHz (sounds like an RD-D2 beeping >> > > noises in ultra high pitch?) >> > >> > Yes, something like that. >> >> Is it actually "not working" though, even at the hardware level? > > It works, but for me this sounds are very weird ;) > >> To my >> knowledge those noises are normal, and aren't even signs of a harware >> problem. I believe it is the natural result of changing frequencies at any >> time. If you change frequencies, especially in the low end of available >> frequencies, you should hear a very brief noise. A governor such as >> ondemand, which is rapidly switching the frequency from say, 333 MHz to >> 2.66 GHz, is likely to make this much more noticable. > > Ok, it might be normal behavior. I might be wrong, but IMO users > prefer speed and no strange sounds as default setting.
I agree! My suggestion, however, is that if they do want a different scheduler as the default, they can choose one.
There are some cases in which this could be very useful. A couple examples would be the processor with poor cooling that overheats easily, or a laptop with a poor battery.
However, on second thought with regards to Kconfig, would it be feasible to have performance always be the default, unless a "cpufreqgov=conservative" arguement was specified on the command line?
This would be less susceptible to users complaining that their cpu is chirping all of a sudden.
William Heimbigner icxcnika@mar.tar.cc - 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/
| |