From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 27 02:45:48 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3892F16A420; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:45:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: from hydrogen.funkthat.com (gate.funkthat.com [69.17.45.168]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF6A43D55; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:45:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: from hydrogen.funkthat.com (tkenasmjkflixzrr@localhost.funkthat.com [127.0.0.1]) by hydrogen.funkthat.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0R2iXXu087549; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:44:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: (from jmg@localhost) by hydrogen.funkthat.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id k0R2iWfe087548; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:44:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jmg) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:44:32 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney To: Brian Candler Message-ID: <20060127024432.GT69162@funkthat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Brian Candler , Poul-Henning Kamp , Peter Jeremy , current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org References: <20060125201450.GE25397@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <56988.1138220896@critter.freebsd.dk> <20060126101138.GA40773@uk.tiscali.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060126101138.GA40773@uk.tiscali.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p6 i386 X-PGP-Fingerprint: B7 EC EF F8 AE ED A7 31 96 7A 22 B3 D8 56 36 F4 X-Files: The truth is out there X-URL: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/ X-Resume: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/resume.html Cc: Peter Jeremy , Poul-Henning Kamp , current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: John-Mark Gurney List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:45:48 -0000 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."