Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:44:32 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> Cc: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches Message-ID: <20060127024432.GT69162@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20060126101138.GA40773@uk.tiscali.com> References: <20060125201450.GE25397@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <56988.1138220896@critter.freebsd.dk> <20060126101138.GA40773@uk.tiscali.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian Candler wrote this message on Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:11 +0000:
> If the CPU were then cranked down to 1/3rd of its clock speed, this task
Who manually cracks it down? and if it is manually crancked down,
then shouldn't we use that as the "maximum clock speed" for the
computation? I don't think an admin is going to sit around changing
the system's clock speed on a second by second basis...
The whole point of this discussion is regarding systems that scale
back their cpu clock when not in use, and speed up when the system
is heavily used... in your example of a 1/3rd of the clock speed,
the system would magicly make the other 2/3rds of the cpu cycles
available by the auto scaling daemon...
If it's hard set, then the algorithm used to calculate seconds will
use the new hard set speed, and not the fastest dynamic speed...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060127024432.GT69162>