Originally posted by skeevy420
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Schedutil Frequency Invariance Revised For Better Intel Performance + Power Efficiency
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
And let us not forget that this field is ripe for placebo effects right and left.
Welp, we're pushing a full 10gbps, better ramp up the CPU to keep up with SHA512 check-summing and Zstd compression or ffmpeg and the media transcoder just finished, should wait a minute before ramping down in case a 2nd video is picked on the Xbox.
Governors really don't need that kind of stuff, just interfaces to adjust what happens overall or to tell it what to do right now and to stay that way until further instructions are sent.
Comment
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
Yep. That's why I think load based tools and daemons are better.
Welp, we're pushing a full 10gbps, better ramp up the CPU to keep up with SHA512 check-summing and Zstd compression or ffmpeg and the media transcoder just finished, should wait a minute before ramping down in case a 2nd video is picked on the Xbox.
Governors really don't need that kind of stuff, just interfaces to adjust what happens overall or to tell it what to do right now and to stay that way until further instructions are sent.
Comment
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostThe problem with more and more configurability is the governor gets to a point where it spends more time running checks and balances to decide what to do than actually doing it.
If it's just a number that it already has to check, then it's probably not as expensive.
If it's changing a function call, you can settle on defining that on boot time, which allows to replace the call on site, not requiring indirection (that's call static calls AFAIR).
More complex changes probably justify a different governor altogether.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostGovernors really don't need that kind of stuff, just interfaces to adjust what happens overall or to tell it what to do right now and to stay that way until further instructions are sent.Last edited by mrugiero; 19 November 2019, 07:59 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View PostIt depends on the configuration and how it's implemented.
If it's just a number that it already has to check, then it's probably not as expensive.
If it's changing a function call, you can settle on defining that on boot time, which allows to replace the call on site, not requiring indirection (that's call static calls AFAIR).
More complex changes probably justify a different governor altogether.
You end up with the exact same problem, you just moved it around. Who tells it what to do? What logic does it use?
Code:Check 1 Check 1a Check 1b Check 1b-1 Check 1c Check 2 Check 3 Check 3a
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
Hard to do right though. Ramping down to slow and you waste energy and heat, ramping down to fast and you end up with the Ondemand problem for games that was the basis for the Feral GameMode module. And that is just one of the many variables.
Instead of running a script before launching the program to set the down threshold to 1/switch to performance and another script to revert that upon close, a user configured daemon could automagically do that.
The OnDemand problem for games is why I suggested a mouse movement check above....just because I'm corner camping with a shotgun in a building and there ain't shit going on currently, that doesn't mean I want my CPU to idle down so I can get shot up by some MLC asshole because my idling-ass CPU didn't ramp up fast enough to render The Flash with a pistol and knife coming through the door...
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment