Your message dated Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:28:21 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#330402: mention cpu-freq and ACPI throttling are different
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Sep 2005 21:59:11 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 27 14:59:11 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from frodo.hserus.net [204.74.68.40]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EKNTj-0003Ki-00; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:59:11 -0700
Received: from tc218-187-20-165.dialup.dynamic.apol.com.tw
([218.187.20.165]:3510 helo=jidanni1)
by frodo.hserus.net with esmtpsa
(Cipher TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.52 #0)
id 1EKNTd-000Fkz-2s by authid <jidanni> with plain
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:29:09 +0530
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Debbugs-No-Ack: please
Subject: mention cpu-freq and ACPI throttling are different
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 05:43:45 +0800
X-Debbugs-Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-14.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
X_DEBBUGS_CC,X_DEBBUGS_NO_ACK autolearn=ham
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: linux-doc-2.6.12
Version: 2.6.12-2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: upstream
Gentlemen, Documentation/cpu-freq/user-guide.txt.gz,
and the relevant Documentation/*/*/*ACPI*/ document (that I cannot
find), should both emphasize that
/proc/acpi/processor/CPU/throttling
and
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/
while appearing to describe the same thing, the e.g., same eight
steps, etc., are apparently independent of each other.
One finds that a process that took 1 second will take 7 seconds when
choosing the lowest cpufreq step. Choosing the lowest throttling step
on the other hand causes that process to take 14 seconds!
And combining both cpufreq and throttling causes it to take much
longer. All these phenomena should be explained.
(I used
$ time seq 999999|wc -c>/dev/null )
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 330402-done) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Oct 2005 09:32:45 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 03 02:32:45 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from koto.vergenet.net [210.128.90.7]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EMMge-0008OX-00; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:32:44 -0700
Received: by koto.vergenet.net (Postfix, from userid 7100)
id 39E593403D; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:32:14 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:28:21 +0900
From: Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#330402: mention cpu-freq and ACPI throttling are different
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Cluestick: seven
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 03:46:33AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> D> No, they're not independent. You shouldn't do throttling at all, unless you
> D> really know what you're doing.
>
> Which just proves that I am in no position to this:
>
> >> Hi Dan,
>
> >> Could you please draft an amendment to the documents in question
> >> and I will pass it on to upstream for consideration.
>
> S> Or you could mail it to LKML yourself.
>
> as I am an absolute beginner.
I am closing this, as its not related to the Debian package
If you have arbitary improvements for upstream code, please contact upstream.
Regards
--
Horms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
