Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:05:21 +0100 From: Marco Calviani <marco.calviani@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cpufreq and changing driver Message-ID: <da5cd1900512020105t60c1191cw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051201141724.GE17066@poupinou.org> References: <da5cd1900511300337t22728ec8y@mail.gmail.com> <da5cd1900511300553r40fcb922m@mail.gmail.com> <438DE9D0.6080107@root.org> <da5cd1900511301205g952b0an@mail.gmail.com> <20051130205130.GA10786@poupinou.org> <da5cd1900511301314p48c399a2k@mail.gmail.com> <438E2056.4020505@root.org> <20051130222525.GA11219@poupinou.org> <da5cd1900511302347ydd89af6h@mail.gmail.com> <20051201141724.GE17066@poupinou.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Bruno, > > 2) sorry what about the point that we were discussing above? The high > > number of transition you were explaining me, are present in the actual > > implementation of powerd, and if not, why? > > It's not present under powerd for the simple fact that to be efficient > in term of not being too intrusive (kernel to user data transfers, etc), > powerd can only provide a limited number of check per second (at this > time, 2 per second). But the current algorithm present in powerd is > not well suited in that case. You have to wait one demi-second > for the processor being put to full speed if the system was idle > before. > Are there on the horizon any sort of plans to implement a newer and more efficient algorithm to increase the number of transition per second? Sorry but i've not understood why linux-cpufreqd is able to cope with those without being so intrusive..... Best regards, MC
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?da5cd1900512020105t60c1191cw>