Update on DeviceKit

[Holger Macht]

On Do 08. Mai - 22:00:13, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 10:56:45PM +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > On Do 08. Mai - 21:50:42, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 10:38:43PM +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > > 
> > > > With you're argumentation being true, it wouldn't make sense to have
> > > > something like an ondemand governor at all. Not to mention having an
> > > > up_threshold exported to userspace. Just always run at full speed.
> > > 
> > > In an ideal universe, it wouldn't be. However, there's a (small) power 
> > > cost involved in ramping up the voltage and frequency. If the amount of 
> > > work to be done is sufficiently small, you can win (slightly) by staying 
> > > at the lower frequency, and so ondemand makes sense.
> > 
> > So setting the up_threshold down, and thus staying a little bit longer at
> > a low frequency, makes sense too.
> 
> Depending on your workload. Systems with bursty but short periods of 
> work will benefit from different values when compared to systems doing 
> longer periods of work. It can't be expressed as a linear scale, and at 
> the point where you're exposing implementation details like that over an 
> OS-agnostic abstraction layer, you've already failed.

So, usual desktop systems have what kind of workload? Compiling over a
longer period of time? No. Browsing to another web page? Yes.

Regards,
	Holger