Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Better ACPI, Power Management For Linux 3.12 Kernel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,410

    Default Better ACPI, Power Management For Linux 3.12 Kernel

    Phoronix: Better ACPI, Power Management For Linux 3.12 Kernel

    The Linux 3.12 kernel will feature improvements to ACPI and power management in general thanks to recent developments...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ1MzA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    was not it for the 3.10 and 3.11 kernels ? oh well I guess it's a work in progress for several releases

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    20

    Default

    cpufreq on demand governor should now choose target frequencies proportionally to load
    What did it do before?

    Btw, does it have a (configurable) hysteresis?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xnor View Post
    What did it do before?
    It was more like: no load -> min freq, some load -> max freq.

    Quote Originally Posted by xnor View Post
    Btw, does it have a (configurable) hysteresis?
    Yes: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...emand_governor

    /edit:
    Just wanted to add: I liked the old way, because that way the task gets finished faster and the cpu can go back to min freq. faster. But this is only true if the task is not some long running program which causes a medium load over a long period of time (e.g. non-desktop loads).
    Last edited by droste; 09-04-2013 at 05:08 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Better ACPI, Power Management For Linux 3.12 Kernel

    The Linux 3.12 kernel will feature improvements to ACPI and power management in general thanks to recent developments...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ1MzA
    So, no infrastructure progress towards supporting intel smart connect?
    I can see this being low priority since it's not intended for servers, but it would be great for laptops.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droste View Post
    It was more like: no load -> min freq, some load -> max freq.
    Just adding that idle priority loads did not cause a bump in speed. One could run John on all cores and they would stay at the lowest freq.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    sandy laptop under win8 -> ~160 min moderate use

    sandy laptop under 3.8 -> ~ 100 min moderate use

Posting Permissions

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