You are not logged in.
Lately i have been experimenting with custom kernel compiling, testing bfs, bfq and other "desktop friendly" patches for the linux kernel.
Making the tests in my core 2 duo laptop it seems that when choosing 1000 Hz as the default frequency timer (with dynamic ticks on), the system is much more responsive.
After a lot o reading in this forum and in general on the internet, there is a common belief that by using 1000Hz is very power hungry comparing with 300Hz.
Talking about a laptop, i really care about power consumption but i also want to get the most out of my system, so my question is that if i choose 1000Hz, leaving dynamic ticks enabled (and not disabling them as many suggestion for low latency say), will my system be far more power hungry than with 300Hz?
Reading about dynamic ticks, if i have understood correctly, if they are enabled, the frequency timer is not stuck at 1000Hz but it has a range of frequencies. So finally, assuming that dynamic ticks are enabled is the choice of 1000Hz so important for power consumption?
Mikes on AUR
Offline
It used to increase power consumption, but now the kernel has tickless idle so there aren't needless ticks while the CPU is idling. All that really matters for power usage these days is power consumption while idle and the time spent idle, so you should be fine with 1000Hz.
Last edited by thestinger (2011-01-27 19:32:04)
Offline
So when i choose 1000Hz with dynamic ticks enabled i only change the upper limit of frequency timer when the system is not idle. Am i right?
Mikes on AUR
Offline