Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:27:37 +1030 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@poupinou.org> Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: powerd effectiveness Message-ID: <200601131027.38149.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20060112235415.GA16467@poupinou.org> References: <43C5A261.1020407@rogers.com> <200601131010.59992.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20060112235415.GA16467@poupinou.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1243814.9WEU2pgRUd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:24, Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > Nearly all of the energy going into the CPU is disipated as heat. > > Of course. But the goal of powerd is to reduce power comsuption with > nearly no visible impact on performance. This imply that if the > runpercent is nearly 100%, then the processor will be put to full > frequency even though this can imply an overheat situation. > The role of acpi_thermal is to reduce frequency if the processor is > too hot, and this imply performance loss if runpercent is high. Yes, but the original poster was wondering why their CPU temperature didn't= go=20 down when the clock was (allegedly) very slow. =2D-=20 Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C --nextPart1243814.9WEU2pgRUd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBDxuzy5ZPcIHs/zowRAgVDAKCe5yoFagkQgcAiQNCh8J+zh5Yr3QCdHljG lTlyq2cg/ZWzm7iOUB/ZTxs= =gzpM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1243814.9WEU2pgRUd--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200601131027.38149.doconnor>