5

cpufreq: CPU is faster with ondemand governor than with userspace

view full story
linux-howto

https://bbs.archlinux.org – Gusar wrote:ernetas wrote:a CPU under performance governor should do it faster than ondemand, because it does not need to wait for the average utilization reach 95%.That's such a small part of the whole operation, it's completely insignificant in the end. Frequency switches happen in millisecond intervals.I can see that you argue without any proof and just based on your own opinion... Way to go. Let me quote ArchLinux Wiki:With the out-of-the-box configuration, the ondemand governor will result in a slight but measurable and noticeable loss of performance.Gusar wrote:ernetas wrote:It (HowTos)

Tagmego's picture
Submitted by Tagmego on 11/04/2012 – Made popular on 11/04/2012

Stories similar to cpufreq: CPU is faster with ondemand governor than with userspace

Fresh install of Arch.

First read wiki thoroughly. Did you set up all modules required by your hardware? Then check if it works without making permanent changes i.e. # cpufreq-set -r -g ondemand. IF everything works ok then think about how to automate this if you need it. For now look inside /etc/conf.d/cpufreq and see if there is no double and everything is ok there.

I installed the new Blackout ICS ROM v.3.1.0

Issue with SetCPU (the free version posted here in XDA).

The default setting for this ROM is 1024 MHz with Performance as the Governor.

I tried changing the Governor from Performance to Ondemand. When I set it with SetCPU, the Ondemand governor takes over.

Raynman wrote:Not sure about 3, but everything else is covered in the wiki article linked by you.Configuring CPU scaling is a 3-part process:  1.  Load appropriate CPU frequency driver  2.  Load desired scaling governor(s)  3.  Select a method to manage switching and tuning governor(s):You stopped after the second part.Ye, you were right.

I guess you should try to make sure cpufreq scales correctly without overclocking first and then try it with your overclocking craziness.

It's not entirely predictable, though it may have something to do with actual use -- that is, maybe the kernel and/or the hardware is deciding that I'm running too hot and forceably underclocking me...

Here's what I currently see, when things are working:

I searched on Google for ways to tweak this governor for better battery life and I came across this

To bias ondemand towards battery saving, set high up-thresholds and higher sampling-rate.

Hi all! Ok, so here's my problem. I have an AMD Phenom II x2 550 overclocked to 3.4Ghz. Currently I have cool 'n quiet enabled in the BIOS. Now, CNQ operates in steppings, and here is my output data from cpufrequtils:

Code: john@Mitsune:~$ cpufreq-info cpufrequtils 005: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2006

Hey people, look at this (kernel 3.8):$ cpupower frequency-info analyzing CPU 0: driver: acpi-cpufreq CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 10.0 us. hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.20 GHz available frequency steps: 2.20 GHz, 2.20 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 800 MHz available cpufreq