Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:18:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/cpufreq est.c Message-ID: <20080317141717.U3253@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <3709.1205762533@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <3709.1205762533@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <200803170933.48212.jhb@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes: > >> Hmm, I actually consider this a feature when I'm not running powerd to use >> less battery. I think we should only bump up the CPU on battery power when >> using powerd so that it can be lowered again to save battery power when the >> CPU is idle. > > We have cpufreq enabled by default now, badly configured machines run at 50% > of rated CPU power because people don't know that they need to enable > powerd(8) on servers. > > This is only going to get worse when more EnergyStar compliant servers hit > the channel. > > I think setting full speed is the correct choice, if people care about > powersaving, they need to configured it, if they don't they should get their > moneys worth out of their hardware. If cpufreq is going to be enabled by default, should we be enabling powerd by default, or at least having a powerd_enable="AUTO" that detects the appropriate frobs and feedback sources and turns on powerd if it's going to be useful? There might be a reasonable argument to be made that in two of the three computing environments of choice for FreeBSD (notebooks, servers in colos), power management is a basic assumption and we should turn on the necessary bits to deal with it. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080317141717.U3253>