> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:35:29 +0200 > From: Bruno Ducrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:22:02AM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > > A couple days ago I updated my system and was excited to see cpufreq > > and powerd in 5-stable. Since then however I noticed that my laptop > > temperature is about 5°C higher than with est and estctrl. I found that > > cpufreq when setting 200MHz for example set the absolute frequency to > > 1600MHz (max for this laptop) and the relative frequency (p4tcc) to > > 12.5% instead of using a more power conserving setting like 800MHz/25%. > > > > The problem is that cpufreq_expand_set() (sys/kern/kern_cpu.c) > > traverses freq levels from high to low when adding relative levels and > > skips duplicates. When it wants to add 800MHz/25% it sees this setting > > as a duplicate of 1600MHz/12.5% it has found before. This can be fixed > > by letting cpufreq_expand_set() traverse freq levels in reverse order > > (and still skipping duplicates). Then each frequency level has the > > lowest possible absolute setting. This is a one line change in > > sys/kern/kern_cpu.c (line 653). > > It's a well known bug. Someday I think I will have enough time to fix > that one if Nate don't bite me.
I have been running with Tijl's patch set for several days with great results. Testing has shown that the patches resolve both issues and I now see only 11 CPU speeds, all of those below the lower CPU clock speed are at that lower speed. Thus far I have seen no negative issues. The temperature of my system is noticeably cooler when not running something that is compute intensive. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
