Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 18:19:17 +0200 From: Bartosz Fabianowski <freebsd@chillt.de> To: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Daniel Gerzo <danger@FreeBSD.org>, stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: powerd / cpufreq question Message-ID: <4DA08705.9050507@chillt.de> In-Reply-To: <4DA07B53.2090803@FreeBSD.org> References: <4D9EEDAF.3020803@rulez.sk> <4D9EF48C.9070907@FreeBSD.org> <e229a6a374fdd5a626c0b777752fef54@rulez.sk> <4D9F2384.5000104@FreeBSD.org> <85cda6f83d328e67a552b2cd5758dbd3@rulez.sk> <4DA06F92.4070702@chillt.de> <4DA07B53.2090803@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> On my Core i7 setup here, the change seems to work well. > > ... in your specific workload. And you haven't described how you > measured system performance to prove that it haven't decreased. My measure of "performance" is entirely unscientific: This is a desktop box. Performance is good if KDE reacts to inputs quickly. My patch preserves this for me while making the box run a bit cooler. I am by no means advocating that my patch be made the default behavior. But as you said, it may be nice to include it as one of several algorithms the user can choose from. - Bartosz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DA08705.9050507>