From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 18 00:24:49 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC59B16A41F for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:24:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd.stable@melvyn.homeunix.org) Received: from sarevok.lan.melvyn.homeunix.org (i153153.upc-i.chello.nl [62.195.153.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569C443D4C for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:24:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd.stable@melvyn.homeunix.org) Received: by sarevok.lan.melvyn.homeunix.org (Postfix, from userid 100) id 9E16911454; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:24:46 +0100 (CET) From: Melvyn Sopacua To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:24:46 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 References: <20051218001359.46E495D07@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: <20051218001359.46E495D07@ptavv.es.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512180124.46491.freebsd.stable@melvyn.homeunix.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:24:49 -0000 On Sunday 18 December 2005 01:13, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:14:01 +0100 > > From: martinko > > > > Kevin Oberman wrote: > > >>Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600 > > >>From: Craig Boston > > >>Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > >> > > >>>-cpu0: on acpi0 > > >>>+cpu0: on acpi0 > > >>> > > >>>Q: Guessing that's a formatting difference, rather then 6.x not > > >>> recognizing the states (sysctl hw.acpi.cpu.cx_supported confirms 4 > > >>> states) > > >> > > >>Not sure on this, but you're probably better off using EST anyway as I > > >>think it gives you more control over the processor frequency. > > > > > > No. There is no conflict between Cx states and EST. Cx states specifies > > > how deeply the CPU will sleep when idle. EST controls processor speed > > > and voltage. In most cases, your REALLY want to use both of these. They > > > are very significant in saving power. (Of course, USB tends to limit > > > the effectiveness of Cx states. I need to run without USB to get really > > > good battery life and to make suspend (S3) really ut power drain. > > > > Kevin, > > > > I used to have 3 Cx states supported when I started with FreeBSD on > > version 5.3. Since I upgraded to 5.4 and recently to 6.0, all I can see > > is just one supported Cx state. I much wonder why. (?) > > What value do you have in /etc/rc.conf (if any) for > performance_cx_lowest? It defaults to HIGH which will limit you to only > the most power hungry sleep state (simple halt). This was made the > default because some hardware was breaking when this was defaulted to > LOW. T0 get other Cx states to be utilized, add > 'performance_cx_lowest="LOW"' to /etc/rc.conf. Doesn't affect hw.acpi.cpu.cx_supported though, so that's the thing to check: # sysctl hw.acpi.cpu.cx_supported; grep performance /etc/rc.conf|wc -l hw.acpi.cpu.cx_supported: C1/1 C2/1 C3/85 C4/185 0 -- Melvyn Sopacua freebsd.stable@melvyn.homeunix.org FreeBSD 6.0-STABLE Qt: 3.3.5 KDE: 3.4.3