Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:26:47 +0000 From: "Igor Mozolevsky" <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk> To: "Maxim Sobolev" <sobomax@digifonica.com> Cc: njl@freebsd.org, bruno@freebsd.org, Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Subject: Re: powerd adaptive mode latching Message-ID: <a2b6592c0801121526r7e6eb82cpaacfa66eadc06ef7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <478930D2.90806@digifonica.com> References: <a2b6592c0801110351l382959ffh1d55f2bcd2e6ca1b@mail.gmail.com> <20080111181344.5E7244500E@ptavv.es.net> <a2b6592c0801111119r148d3697hf75a59b7bf74d540@mail.gmail.com> <478930D2.90806@digifonica.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/01/2008, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@digifonica.com> wrote: > I wonder if somebody did measurement of power consumption with powerd > and without it on typical tasks. There is very interesting idea in the > last issue of ACM Queue that it might be much more beneficial to run CPU > at the full speed and then switch it to low-power mode as soon as > possible in the idle loop than to run longer at reduced speed for a > longer period of time. That's a pretty neat idea, and will certainly get rid of the polling issue. The scheduler could scale the cpu clock, but I presume it would require some hacking effort... Igor
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a2b6592c0801121526r7e6eb82cpaacfa66eadc06ef7>