View Single Post
ammyt's Avatar
Posts: 1,918 | Thanked: 3,118 times | Joined on Oct 2010 @ My pants
#35
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Back on topic, all of this is pointless, because device with limits 500-900 (or any other) doesn't "sit" on 500 when idle - it effectively underclock to 0 mhz, so You save also on power leakage. Talking in simplified way, CPU do it's job, and then go to "sleep" - every second.

So, if You set limits to lower (i.e 250), You got less time on 0 mhz - every second - cause it takes longer to finish "idle" set of task on 250, than on - for example - 500 mhz.

Furthermore, monitoring every dbus signal use resources and battery power.

Effect is, that You loose battery life, instead of gaining it. Of course people will report increased battery life - via placebo effect - but there is no reason why it should give any real-life gain.
Good point.
I will then set the idle limits to 0 500 MHz.
But don't forget the vfs_cache_pressure trick, which is set at 10 while idle and 100 while active which is proven to give humongous battery life.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ammyt For This Useful Post: