From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 10 20:13:31 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: acpi@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A89716A41F; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:13:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from postal2.es.net (postal2.es.net [198.128.3.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1502243D48; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:13:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal2.es.net (Postal Node 2) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:13:29 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id C6B6D5D07; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:13:29 -0700 (PDT) To: Bruno Ducrot In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:35:29 +0200." <20050809093529.GG852@poupinou.org> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:13:29 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20050810201329.C6B6D5D07@ptavv.es.net> Cc: acpi@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5-STABLE cpufreq hotter than est from ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:13:31 -0000 > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:35:29 +0200 > From: Bruno Ducrot > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:22:02AM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > > A couple days ago I updated my system and was excited to see cpufreq > > and powerd in 5-stable. Since then however I noticed that my laptop > > temperature is about 5°C higher than with est and estctrl. I found that > > cpufreq when setting 200MHz for example set the absolute frequency to > > 1600MHz (max for this laptop) and the relative frequency (p4tcc) to > > 12.5% instead of using a more power conserving setting like 800MHz/25%. > > > > The problem is that cpufreq_expand_set() (sys/kern/kern_cpu.c) > > traverses freq levels from high to low when adding relative levels and > > skips duplicates. When it wants to add 800MHz/25% it sees this setting > > as a duplicate of 1600MHz/12.5% it has found before. This can be fixed > > by letting cpufreq_expand_set() traverse freq levels in reverse order > > (and still skipping duplicates). Then each frequency level has the > > lowest possible absolute setting. This is a one line change in > > sys/kern/kern_cpu.c (line 653). > > It's a well known bug. Someday I think I will have enough time to fix > that one if Nate don't bite me. I have been running with Tijl's patch set for several days with great results. Testing has shown that the patches resolve both issues and I now see only 11 CPU speeds, all of those below the lower CPU clock speed are at that lower speed. Thus far I have seen no negative issues. The temperature of my system is noticeably cooler when not running something that is compute intensive. -- 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