[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] powerdevil-remove-cpufreq.patch
From:       Sebastian Wiesner <basti.wiesner () gmx ! net>
Date:       2010-03-08 16:31:50
Message-ID: 201003081732.00032.basti.wiesner () gmx ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Monday 08 March 2010 16:27:02 you wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 04:06 PM, Sebastian Wiesner wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 March 2010 23:57:37 Holger Macht wrote
> > 
> >> Remove all CPU frequency scaling code from powerdevil and the kcm
> >> module. You should never offer those options to the user because he
> >> might not understand what the impact is. You only want a dynamic
> >> frequency algorithm which is the default these days (ondemand
> >> governor). A good explanation is provided in [1].
> > 
> > I do not object the point, but saving power is really not all I care for.
> >   At least for my part, controlling and limiting  head and noise
> > emission is often much more important than lengthening battery lifetime
> > as much as possible.  In many situations, I prefer a system, that is
> > cool and silent even under heavy load.  Therefore I do not only have a
> > "power plug" and "battery" profile, but also a "silent" and a "movie"
> > profile, both using the powersave governor to limit CPU frequency and
> > hence head, fan speed and noise.
> > 
> > Of course, if these options are removed, I can still use other tools to
> > limit CPU frequency, but none of them is as convenient as powerdevil
> > with its integration into KDE.  Therefore, I'd really miss these
> > options, if the were removed from powerdevil.
> 
> Yes, I know a lot people will miss them and there will be a lot more
> complains about this. Believe me, this will hit back on me when users
> report this in my employers bugzilla ;-)
> 
> People got used to it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

I did not doubt, that it is wrong.  But you know, it just works, and not being 
interested in power management theory, that is all I care for :)

> If you have thermal problems, those need to be solved in a different way
> but not with CPU frequency scaling.

And what is this "different way"?  How can I limit heat and noise emission if 
not by reducing CPU frequency?  

At least, Matthew Garret, who supports your point, also says [1]:

> The only legitimate reasons for limiting the speed of your CPU are […] or to 
> make the machine quieter. And if you want your machine to be quieter, there 
> should be a tickbox marked "Reduce performance in order to reduce noise" or 
> something, which would take into account all the sources of heat in 
> your machine rather than just your CPU.

As said:  I do not object changes to the way, CPU frequency scaling is 
currently handled in powerdevil.  I'd agree, that the user shouldn't be 
bothered with CPU frequency scaling in detail.  But there are legitimate (at 
least from my point of view) reasons to adjust CPU frequency scaling policy.  
And if that's hidden behind a "reduce noise" checkbox, I'm fine with it … :)

[1] http://mjg59.livejournal.com/88608.html

-- 
Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
                                      (Rosa Luxemburg)

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]