From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 28 02:20:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072FA1065670 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 02:20:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [220.233.188.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752B08FC08 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 02:20:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mBS2KQoH076869; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:20:26 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:20:26 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith To: "Alexandre \"Sunny\" Kovalenko" In-Reply-To: <1230388519.1270.1.camel@RabbitsDen> Message-ID: <20081228124345.D51566@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <20081221233822.7E92545020@ptavv.es.net> <49500088.2080609@bigfoot.com> <7d6fde3d0812221315s4d03e15dw4b84679b98a6308f@mail.gmail.com> <49534F10.7040305@bigfoot.com> <7d6fde3d0812261912r1d5abd6cic1513f11cc59f1c5@mail.gmail.com> <20081227160941.I29108@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <1230388519.1270.1.camel@RabbitsDen> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: acpi Subject: Re: Problem on AMD64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 02:20:29 -0000 On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, Alexandre "Sunny" Kovalenko wrote: > On Sat, 2008-12-27 at 17:13 +1100, Ian Smith wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:14 AM, David van Kuijk wrote: > > [..] > > > >> Look into the following sysctls: > > > >> > > > >> hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest > > > >> hw.acpi.cpu.cx_highest > > > >> > > > > > > > > I tried to find out what I can do with those sysctls. > > > > hw.acpi.cpu.cx_highest is not available on my system. > > > > I don't think it exists; C1 state is always available AFAIK. > > > > > > hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest is available and can be set. Are you suggesting I > > > > should set it to C2 or C3??? > > > > Give it a try. Setting it to C3 won't hurt, whether it's used or not. > Actually it just might (hurt that is). See below for the discussion. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=0+2482 > +/usr/local/www/db/text/2008/freebsd-acpi/20081109.freebsd-acpi Thanks. Yes that was indeed an interesting discussion. FWIW, I find that interface awkward, without threading. For me it's easier from: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi/2008-November/005182.html Could I then safely say, setting it to C2 won't hurt? I'm glad there are folks working on power use with SMP, it still needs moving up the agenda. 'Global notebook sales finally beat desktops': http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/24/notebooks_pass_desktops/ Soon it'll be hard to find uniprocessors even on subnotebooks; has anyone played with the new Intel Atom CPUs, which use HTT on one core? And to mix topics further, having USB enabled looks problematic with on-battery use of laptops .. does this new USB stack offer any relief? cheers, Ian