From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 2 10:00:19 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6D016A41F; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:00:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from www.cryptography.com (li-22.members.linode.com [64.5.53.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B3143D58; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:00:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from [10.0.0.250] (ppp-71-139-30-140.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [71.139.30.140]) by www.cryptography.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB2A0WZM017120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 2 Dec 2005 02:00:33 -0800 Message-ID: <43901B25.6010908@root.org> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:00:05 -0800 From: Nate Lawson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marco Calviani References: <438DE9D0.6080107@root.org> <20051130205130.GA10786@poupinou.org> <438E2056.4020505@root.org> <20051130222525.GA11219@poupinou.org> <20051201141724.GE17066@poupinou.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cpufreq and changing driver X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:00:19 -0000 Marco Calviani wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > > > 2) sorry what about the point that we were discussing above? The high > >>>number of transition you were explaining me, are present in the actual >>>implementation of powerd, and if not, why? >> >>It's not present under powerd for the simple fact that to be efficient >>in term of not being too intrusive (kernel to user data transfers, etc), >>powerd can only provide a limited number of check per second (at this >>time, 2 per second). But the current algorithm present in powerd is >>not well suited in that case. You have to wait one demi-second >>for the processor being put to full speed if the system was idle >>before. >> > > > Are there on the horizon any sort of plans to implement a newer and > more efficient algorithm to increase the number of transition per > second? Sorry but i've not understood why linux-cpufreqd is able to > cope with those without being so intrusive..... This work is easy, it's just grunt work implementing and testing to see which is best. See this page for details on how to proceed: http://wikitest.freebsd.org/moin.cgi/powerd Wikitest seems to be down so here's the text only: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IEXV5nW17ZMJ:wikitest.freebsd.org/moin.cgi/powerd+site:wikitest.freebsd.org+powerd+&hl=en&lr=&strip=1 -- Nate