Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:11:26 -0700 From: Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "sbruno@freebsd.org" <sbruno@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] Sparse Cstate Support -- Its possible, that I don't know what I'm doing. Message-ID: <1340208686.2858.0.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <4FE158FF.5070209@FreeBSD.org> References: <1340121728.5203.8.camel@powernoodle> <4FE0EA24.6000906@FreeBSD.org> <1340142162.3201.12.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <4FE158FF.5070209@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 22:00 -0700, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > It seems that the rc.conf value of performance_cx_lowest="LOW" is > what I > > really want, not economy_cx_lowest. > > Yes. Could you please try this without using your patch? > > I get an impression that its effect was to actually request C2 when > cx_lowest is > set to C1. > > -- > Andriy Gapon Confirmed. If I set performance_cx_lowest="LOW" then the system sets the "C2" state and really implements C3 correctly. I see a 25 watt power saving without the patch on the Dell r410. sean
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1340208686.2858.0.camel>