Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:37:40 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Jonathan Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current is sluggish Message-ID: <20060211013739.GA6802@flame.pc> In-Reply-To: <43ED3F27.1080808@alumni.rice.edu> References: <43ED294A.2050505@savvis.net> <200602110128.50618.max@love2party.net> <20060211003846.GA153@uci.agh.edu.pl> <43ED3423.5060500@alumni.rice.edu> <20060211010216.GA6287@uci.agh.edu.pl> <20060211010509.GA1947@flame.pc> <43ED3F27.1080808@alumni.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2006-02-10 20:34, Jonathan Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> wrote: >Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>On 2006-02-11 02:02, Krzysztof Kowalik <kkowalik@uci.agh.edu.pl> wrote: >>>Jonathan Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> wrote: >>>> I think debug.cpufreq.lowest is what you want. It is documented in >>>> cpufreq(4): >>> >>> Oh, indeed. And to think that I actually did read this manual page. >>> Thank you. :-) >> >> Isn't the minimum level limited by dev.cpu.0.freq_levels though? > > My recollection is that setting debug.cpufreq.lowest would result in low > values being removed from dev.cpu.0.freq_levels. So if > dev.cpu.0.freq_levels started at "800/-1 400/-1 200/-1 100/-1" and you > set debug.cpufreq.lowest to "300", dev.cpu.0.freq_levels would then > become "800/-1 400/-1". Ah! I see... Thanks for the explanation :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060211013739.GA6802>