[Pm-utils] Set performance governor instead of userspace before
newsuser at famdijkstra.org
Wed Oct 11 00:25:39 PDT 2006
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:14:06 +0200
Stefan Seyfried <seife at suse.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 08:04:59PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> > > Wouldn't it be better to set the performance governor then? Because if
> > > frequency is low and you set the userspace governor, frequency will keep
> > > to be low if you have no userspace daemon caring about.
> > >
> > > Anyway, setting the performance governor would be a good idea in any case
> > > because of compression and stuff we will have in the near future.
> > Doesn't matter -- the machine isn't going to be _running_. And when it
> > is running again, we're going to go back to the same governor that we
> > had before. So basically, we're talking about ~2 seconds of runtime
> > that this will effect.
> Compression and encryption of the suspend image can probably benefit from
> higher CPU speed.
> > Since that's the case, I'd rather just leave it as "userspace", if only
> > for the reason that it doesn't _do_ anything. Less stuff being done
> > means less chances of having to hack on this again when a bug is
> > introduced.
> We probably should do a survey on how many distro kernels have "performance"
> compiled in statically vs. as a module, i know we have:
> Because the userspace governor might not be loaded at all, so we'd have
> to check this.
> OTOH that's the job of the distro packager to make sure that the pm-utils
> settings matches his environment, so i do not care too much.
FWIW, debian has _GOV_USERSPACE=m. So performance seems like a better default
More information about the Pm-utils