From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 29 18:29:20 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 C2C9F16A41F; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:29:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from postal4.es.net (postal4.es.net [198.124.252.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434B843D46; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:29:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal4.es.net (Postal Node 4) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:29:18 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id F26405D07; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:29:16 -0700 (PDT) To: Bruno Ducrot In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:38:21 +0200." <20050829073821.GI7749@poupinou.org> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:29:16 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20050829182916.F26405D07@ptavv.es.net> Cc: acpi@freebsd.org, Hajimu UMEMOTO Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/powerd powerd.c 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: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:29:20 -0000 > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:38:21 +0200 > From: Bruno Ducrot > Sender: owner-cvs-all@freebsd.org > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 10:36:38PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote: > > Another mitigating factor is a patch I hope to commit soon that removes > > levels that aren't useful. The general idea is the same as a recent > > email from Tijl Coosemans but my approach is different. > > I'm pretty sure it's incorrect to add p4tcc and acpi_throttle for power > saving purpose. I plan to add some flags in order to use only relevant > frequencies to this end, but IMHO that should be done at low-level > drivers. On the other hand, it is usefull to keep the existing sysctl > freqs, but for cooling purpose only. Bruno, As far as I know, Nate eliminated throttling when TCC was present a while ago. I certainly don't see any combination of them on my P4m system. The non-useful speeds Tjil eliminated were those where ICHSS and TCC (or any of several other combos) would select: 1. The higher speed CPU clock when the same performance level could be obtained with a lower CPU clock and a higher throttle or TCC setting 2. A lower "performance level" actually results in higher power usage and a lower performance. (Never use a higher CPU clock speed if a lower CPU speed is available. the higher CPU speed NEVER seems to win or even come close. These are the cases Tjil's patches were aimed at (and hit the target for my case). -- 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