From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 2 15:23:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0271116A4CE for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 15:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal1.es.net (postal1.es.net [198.128.3.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE31443D48 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 15:23:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal1.es.net (Postal Node 1) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Sun, 02 May 2004 15:23:27 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 304EC5D07; Sun, 2 May 2004 15:23:27 -0700 (PDT) To: James Snow In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 02 May 2004 01:22:51 EDT." <20040502052251.GA39933@teardrop.org> Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 15:23:27 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20040502222327.304EC5D07@ptavv.es.net> cc: Markie cc: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Laptop ACPI question X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 22:23:28 -0000 > Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 01:22:51 -0400 > From: James Snow > > On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 02:05:36PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > > Actually, ACPI will greatly improve battery life soon, but not yet. The > > bits and pieces are being fed into CURRENT and I suspect that SpeedStep > > support will be coming soon. > > In the meantime, you can use sysctls to manually adjust CPU performance > > to enhance battery life. > > > > Look at: > > hw.acpi.cpu.throttle_max: 8 > > hw.acpi.cpu.throttle_state: 8 > > hw.acpi.cpu.cx_supported: C1/0 C2/1 C3/85 > > hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest: 0 > > hw.acpi.cpu.cx_history: 1453705/0 0/0 0/0 > > Hmm. In 5.2.1-p5, I don't have anything under hw.acpi.cpu > labeled .throttle*. I do, however, have these: > > hw.acpi.cpu.max_speed: 8 > hw.acpi.cpu.current_speed: 1 > hw.acpi.cpu.performance_speed: 8 > hw.acpi.cpu.economy_speed: 1 > > acpi(4) seems to suggest that these will alter CPU speed, > and presumably battery life as well. Is this not the case? I suspect that this simply indicates differences between systems. These settings look a lot like the older, less granular APM controlled services. I'd certainly try adjusting hw.acpi.cpu.current_speed and see what effect it has, but it looks to me like it's running at its economy mode, already.