From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 10 10:01:38 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B71716A41F for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:01:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tijl@ulyssis.org) Received: from outmx028.isp.belgacom.be (outmx028.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.3.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2C343D49; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:01:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tijl@ulyssis.org) Received: from outmx028.isp.belgacom.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by outmx028.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-OUT-2.22) with ESMTP id j7AA1P3M012159; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:01:25 +0200 (envelope-from ) Received: from kalimero.kotnet.org (160-127.247.81.adsl.skynet.be [81.247.127.160]) by outmx028.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-OUT-2.22) with ESMTP id j7AA1KFk012109; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:01:20 +0200 (envelope-from ) Received: from kalimero.kotnet.org (kalimero.kotnet.org [127.0.0.1]) by kalimero.kotnet.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j7AA1J4G003242; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:01:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from tijl@ulyssis.org) From: Tijl Coosemans To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:01:18 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <20050808180345.CABF35D08@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: <20050808180345.CABF35D08@ptavv.es.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508101201.19489.tijl@ulyssis.org> Cc: ducrot@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5-STABLE cpufreq hotter than est from ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:01:38 -0000 On Monday 08 August 2005 20:03, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > From: Tijl Coosemans > > Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:18:00 +0200 > > > > In my experience throttling doesn't really gain that much. There's > > almost no difference between running at 600MHz/100% and > > 600MHz/12.5%, except that it is 8 times slower, so I've set > > debug.cpufreq.lowest to 400 to limit the performance drop. > > Odd. I don't see that at all. I am running at either 1.8 GHz or 1.2 > GHz and the performance ramps almost in lock-step with the setting > and power consumption does, as well. Without your patch, using the > values of dev.cpu.0.freq that run the CPU at the slower speed (1.2 > GHz), I get the following: > dev.cpu.0.freq Temp. Savings > 1200 73 > 1050 69 5.5% > 750 64 12.3% > 600 62 15.1% > 300 58 20.5% > 150 54 25.0% > The lowest 1.8 GHz value (1350) results in 85.I find these power > savings to be significant. > > For power consumption I run the CPU at 100% until the CPU temperature > stabilizes. I realize that this is only an approximation of power > consumption, but I think it's close enough. I've done this too now and I must admit throttling does seem to have an=20 effect on power consumption, though it seems to be less and less=20 effective with lower absolute settings. 1600/100% (1600) 69=B0C 1600/12.5% (200) 55=B0C 600/100% (600) 48=B0C 600/12.5% (75) 45=B0C =46or me, dropping to the lowest frequency (75MHz) is just way too=20 expensive.