Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:44:18 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/cpufreq est.c Message-ID: <47DEBC02.8060700@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3709.1205762533@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <3709.1205762533@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <200803170933.48212.jhb@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes: >> On Monday 17 March 2008 05:01:43 am Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> phk 2008-03-17 09:01:43 UTC >>> >>> FreeBSD src repository >>> >>> Modified files: >>> sys/i386/cpufreq est.c >>> Log: >>> Increase time we wait for things to settle to 1 millisecond, >>> 10 microseconds is too short. >>> >>> Always set the cpu to the highest frequency so that we get through >>> boot and don't handicap cpus where powerd(8) is not used. >> Hmm, I actually consider this a feature when I'm not running powerd to use >> less battery. I think we should only bump up the CPU on battery power when >> using powerd so that it can be lowered again to save battery power when the >> CPU is idle. > > We have cpufreq enabled by default now, badly configured machines run > at 50% of rated CPU power because people don't know that they need to > enable powerd(8) on servers. > > This is only going to get worse when more EnergyStar compliant servers > hit the channel. > > I think setting full speed is the correct choice, if people care about > powersaving, they need to configured it, if they don't they should get > their moneys worth out of their hardware. Perhaps make it a kernel option? But I agree that CPU should run at full speed by default, otherwise it would break POLA for users upgrading from previous releases. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47DEBC02.8060700>