From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 19 04:25:44 2005 Return-Path: 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 26E5D16A4CE for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:25:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from postal1.es.net (postal1.es.net [198.128.3.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10AB43D39 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:25:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal1.es.net (Postal Node 1) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:25:43 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 175EC5D07; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:25:43 -0700 (PDT) To: "Daniel O'Connor" In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:26:55 +0930." <200504191026.55803.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:25:43 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20050419042543.175EC5D07@ptavv.es.net> cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Eric Anderson Subject: Re: powerd(8) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:25:44 -0000 > From: "Daniel O'Connor" > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:26:55 +0930 > > --nextPart20628293.OurAszTEo5 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="utf-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Disposition: inline > > On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:59, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > I also have found that changing the polling interval to 150 is an > > improvement. Half a second is just too long, IMHO. I also discovered > > that with my system (P4M) that some settings can use substantially more > > power than faster settings, so I have kludged an ugly hack to avoid > > those settings. These changes make a significant difference in power > > consumption. > > Can you elaborate on these? > It may be worth adding a general algorithm to cull the frequency list power> d > uses based on this info. > > -- > Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer > for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au You can see the thread in acpi@ archives, but simply states, lower the actual CPU reduces power far more than throttling with TCC. I have two available clock rates (1.8 GHz and 1.2 GHz) and TCC provides 8 evenly spaced steps of 12.5% each. The impact on performance, though, is nearly identical. As a result, if there is a choice between the two, you want to run with the lower frequency nd less throttle, but the current code does it the other way. As a result I am limited to 1800, 1575, 1350, 1200, 1050, 750, 600, 300, and 150. cpu.dev.0.freq Temperature CPU Speed 1800 >_PSV 1800 1575 >_PSV 1800 1350 85 1800 1200 73 1200 1125 82 1800 1050 69 1200 900 77 1800 750 64 1200 675 72 1800 600 62 1200 450 66 1800 300 56 1200 225 61 1800 150 54 1200 Temperature is the steady state CPU temperature when running the CPU at full speed (md5) for 5 minutes. It should be proportional to power consumption. I don't know how well this plays with EST or standard throttling (non-P4TCC) and, since my system does not provide energy numbers (it's not EST), there is no easy way to know how it should run except testing. When I get a little more time, I hope to do some more work on this, but, for now, go with PHK's mods and, if energy numbers are available, base the algorithm on that. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634