Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:55:52 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/modules/acpi/acpi Makefile src/sys/dev/acpica acpi_battery.c acpi_smbat.c acpi_smbus.h acpiio.h Message-ID: <8295.1131321352@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:39:09 PST." <436E860D.6000201@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <436E860D.6000201@root.org>, Nate Lawson writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <436E5797.7090605@root.org>, Nate Lawson writes: >>>I've said it many times: we need a real predictive algorithm. Taking a >>>single sample will always have hysteresis problems. >> >> >> I implemented my own algorithm and it works OK for me. Not perfect, >> but OK: >> http://phk.freebsd.dk/patch/powerd.patch > >I think that's what we have in -current, except we promote by 2 instead >of 3. That version was contributed by multiple people, including you >earlier. Is this version substantially different? Ahh ok, I wasn't aware that the stuff in the tree had been changed. I've found that a promotion by three steps felt better than just promoting by two steps, but this is a very subjective thing and it obviously depends on the size of the steps. A good strategy might be to let the decay remain at one, but make the promotion be controllable from the command line. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8295.1131321352>