From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 21 00:40:45 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F0416A4CE for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:40:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80C043D3F for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:40:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DOPfu-0004jN-Px for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:36:10 +0200 Received: from gn-hgk-15cd4.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([81.69.122.212]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:36:10 +0200 Received: from A.S.Usov by gn-hgk-15cd4.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:36:10 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: "Alexander S. Usov" Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:40:24 +0200 Organization: KVI Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <4263A33A.3030201@centtech.com> <2304.1113826754@critter.freebsd.dk> <20050418140117.GH2298@poupinou.org> <4263C6C5.300@centtech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: gn-hgk-15cd4.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: KNode/0.9.0 Sender: news Subject: Re: powerd(8) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:40:45 -0000 Eric Anderson wrote: > Ok, I've attached my tweaks to PHK's adaptive. I run it like this: > > /usr/sbin/powerd -a max -b adaptive2 -p 100 -r 20 > > Seems to do a pretty decent job at being responsive, yet gives me a longer > battery time than the default adaptive. Not perfect, but still better I > think.. This one works quite nicely, but you should add an additional check that your index "i" is not bigger that "numfreqs-1" when you are going to decrease a speed. But in general, it looks that a main problem with original adaptive algorithm is that it is possible to decrease an effective cpu frequency to an incredibly small values (for mine centrino it can go from 1.3Ghz down to 75Mhz), where even the easiest things take a lot of time, so it is forced to increase it. It looks that just limiting the minimal frequency by a something like 200-300 Mhz should make the original adaptive algorithm work much better. -- Best regards, Alexander.