From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 12 16:36:35 2003 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 1359C16A4CE for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:36:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CF5843D32 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:36:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com) Received: (qmail 54331 invoked by uid 1000); 13 Dec 2003 00:36:35 -0000 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:36:35 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson To: Alexandre Sunny Kovalenko In-Reply-To: <20031212192314.1c895fb5.Alex.Kovalenko@verizon.net> Message-ID: <20031212163613.Y54319@root.org> References: <20031209175230.I44055@root.org> <20031212192314.1c895fb5.Alex.Kovalenko@verizon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ACPI throttling changes 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: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:36:35 -0000 On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Alexandre Sunny Kovalenko wrote: > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:57:53 -0800 (PST) > Nate Lawson wrote: > > > I'm working on a shared CPU frequency control driver. One step is to > > remove some of the autonomy of the throttling portion of acpi_cpu. > > Please test this patch if you have a machine which supports throttling. > > With this patch, throttling can be changed by doing: > > > > sysctl hw.acpi.cpu.current_speed=X > > > > where X is some number between 1 and hw.acpi.cpu.max_speed. It is no > > longer driven by AC line transitions. Run a CPU benchmark like this one > > to make sure the throttling transition still works with this patch. > > > > dd if=/dev/zero bs=1m count=500 | md5 > > > > This is part of a larger work. Don't worry, it won't be committed until > > general CPU frequency control is done so no loss of functionality will be > > committed. > > > > -Nate > > I do not know if it's still of any use (I just caught up on my reading), > but for whatever it worth, results are below. To be fair results are a > little bit surprising to myself as I "feel" better response with 'economy' > set to 4 then with 'economy' set to 2, but of course this in unscientific. Please cvsup, a fix for this has been committed. -Nate