[Pm-utils] Set performance governor instead of userspace before suspend

Stefan Seyfried seife at suse.de
Wed Oct 11 00:14:06 PDT 2006

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.
Stefan Seyfried                  \ "I didn't want to write for pay. I
QA / R&D Team Mobile Devices      \ wanted to be paid for what I write."
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg \                    -- Leonard Cohen

More information about the Pm-utils mailing list