Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Linux's "Ondemand" Governor Is No Longer Fit

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Hey Rahul, can you clarify something for me... just how often is the CPU -really- idling on (for example) the Fedora default desktop setup? I get the Race To Idle, I just don't see when the system would ever be able to fully IDLE because of all the daemons and everything thats going on in the background. If you've got things like KDE's nepomuk constantly scanning for changed files (or dropbox / google drive doing the same thing on non-KDE systems), or any kind of server running on the system, dont those things keep the system busy 24/7?
    No, they listen for file-system changes. Unless you change a file, the file indexer/syncer will not reindex it.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Just updated to kernel 3.9 on my Ivy Bridge laptop to see if it makes a difference. It's hard to say non-subjectively without being lazy and doing some real objective testing, which I didn't, but it seems to have made a difference in both battery life, cpu temperatures, and hence fan noise when doing various tasks.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carewolf View Post
    No, they listen for file-system changes. Unless you change a file, the file indexer/syncer will not reindex it.
    Correct, there is a kernel API which does that, so userspace can go to sleep and just get notified by the filesystem.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by molecule-eye View Post
    Just updated to kernel 3.9 on my Ivy Bridge laptop to see if it makes a difference. It's hard to say non-subjectively without being lazy and doing some real objective testing, which I didn't, but it seems to have made a difference in both battery life, cpu temperatures, and hence fan noise when doing various tasks.
    What does /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor say for you?
    I thought that Ivy Bridge is not yet supported?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by user82 View Post
    What does /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor say for you?
    I thought that Ivy Bridge is not yet supported?
    Look at #17.

    My mobile ivy bridge:
    Code:
     $ cpupower frequency-info
    analyzing CPU 0:
      driver: intel_pstate
      CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0
      CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
      maximum transition latency: 0.97 ms.
      hardware limits: 1.20 GHz - 3.20 GHz
      available cpufreq governors: performance, powersave
      current policy: frequency should be within 1.20 GHz and 3.20 GHz.
                      The governor "performance" may decide which speed to use
                      within this range.
      boost state support:
        Supported: yes
        Active: yes
        25500 MHz max turbo 4 active cores
        25500 MHz max turbo 3 active cores
        25500 MHz max turbo 2 active cores
        25500 MHz max turbo 1 active cores

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by user82 View Post
    What does /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor say for you?
    I thought that Ivy Bridge is not yet supported?
    Only if patched.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    No, OnDemand is still fine for AMD because its AMD. But this is about creating a driver that ACTUALLY does a good job (not a half--assed) job of managing the CPU in terms of power management / performance. Once AMD writes a new scaling driver, like Intel did for intel_pstate, you should switch to that.

    TL;DR: OnDemand is a half assed solution, new pstate drivers are the right solution. Intel only so far. AMD has to write their own.
    Do you think that they will actually submit such code with them shutting down their OSRC and laying off their developers responsible for their cpufrq/PowerNow developers?

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIyMDQ

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Do you think that they will actually submit such code with them shutting down their OSRC and laying off their developers responsible for their cpufrq/PowerNow developers?

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIyMDQ
    I don't THINK AMD is gonna be in business within the next 5 years. And while I realize that does not exactly answer your question, in a way it does.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    I don't THINK AMD is gonna be in business within the next 5 years. And while I realize that does not exactly answer your question, in a way it does.
    Not possible. Even though AMD hardware is really unspectacular they beat Intel hands down in the performance-cost ratio. Intel can play the price game, but if they drop their prices to the level of AMD's there will most certainly be some silly lawsuit being filed on the grounds of the most heavily abused word in the industry: anti-competition. (or dumping, whatever).

    Not to mention AMD has some presence in the dedicated GPU market. Although the alleged performance of Haswell's onboard graphics core are destroying that presence...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Not possible. Even though AMD hardware is really unspectacular they beat Intel hands down in the performance-cost ratio. Intel can play the price game, but if they drop their prices to the level of AMD's there will most certainly be some silly lawsuit being filed on the grounds of the most heavily abused word in the industry: anti-competition. (or dumping, whatever).

    Not to mention AMD has some presence in the dedicated GPU market. Although the alleged performance of Haswell's onboard graphics core are destroying that presence...
    Are they -really- beating Intel on the value end of the spectrum though? Core i5 Haswell is gonna have MORE than adequate graphics for anything up to gaming (and even some gaming) great CPU performance, power consumption is going to be at near-ARM levels, all for about $200 I'm guessing, maybe less. AMD's graphics may be better, but they are still reeling from the clusterfsck known as Bulldozer, their power consumption is up, they cant even idle at the levels that Intel can, and their chips cost between $100 and $200 for Piledriver.

    Quite honestly, at least for me, I wont even CONSIDER an AMD APU for a Laptop just because of the heat and power consumption. Desktop, okay, maybe they have a shot in one of my builds just because power consumption doesnt matter as much there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •