This makes no sense, Michael.
The ACPI performance governor cannot be slower than ondemand one. It just cannot - it keeps the CPU at its highest frequency all the time.
Phoronix: ACPI CPUfreq vs. Intel P-State Scaling With Linux 3.15
For this weekend's Linux benchmarks we are looking at the performance of the Intel P-State and ACPI cpufreq drivers and comparing their scaling governor options when testing from an Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition system running with the Linux 3.15 development kernel.
Yes, it surely does.
Something is really wrong with scaling governors on linux... :/ How can "On-demand" be faster and much more power consuming than "Performance"? What kind of bullshit is this?When timing the compilation of the Linux kernel with these different CPU scaling settings, there was a huge difference. The Intel P-State Performance configuration led to the best results that were timed the same as ACPI CPUfreq with the on-demand governor while the other configurations were about twice as slow!
Because of clock and power gating, C-states are more important than P-states. Doesn't matter much that the performance governor keeps the CPU in the highest P-state all the time, because in deep C states the clock is gated and various parts of the CPU are power gated. Making tasks finish faster allows the CPU to spend more time in these gated C states.
Btw, every time i try to make a custom kernel with pstates, it crashes(as in, kernel panic so deep that i have to pull the battery) as soon as i pull the power cable- it does not like to be told what to do,apparently, so i stick with acpi.
p-state benefits mostly when thermal daemon https://github.com/01org/thermal_daemon is also available and installed, and one side-note can someone do this on a notebook/laptop?