Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 04:18:34 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: john.haraden@yahoo.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: est Message-ID: <20151016013912.B15983@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <mailman.113.1444910402.17187.freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> References: <mailman.113.1444910402.17187.freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 593, Issue 4, Message: 11 On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:10:37 -0700 john.haraden@yahoo.com wrote: > (1) I am running FreeBSD 10.2 with two processors and 24 cores. I > never installed the ports collection or the source code. > (2). How do I disable est? I cannot find a solution in the bios. > (3). The system originally did not activate est. It just appeared > mysteriously one day. I suppose there must have been some sort of change to your system? > I want est deactivated for maximum performance. I am not worried > about heat dissipation. I'm wondering what makes you suspect that the mere presence of the est(4) driver would cost you any performance at all? est(4) is loaded automatically (according to CPU, yours being Intel) by cpufreq(4). Read both man pages to understand these mechanisms. est provides services to cpufreq, which in itself costs no performance unless something - such as powerd(8) - is actually reading &/or writing the sysctls that return &/or set CPU frequency. If you're not using any such mechanism, I can't see how it might impact performance at all. If you still think it's a good idea, you could try compiling a kernel without 'device cpufreq', though I'd be rather surprised if that worked, and of course you'd need system sources (but not ports) to test that. To pursue this further I'd suggest posting to freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org cheers, Ian (please cc me on any response; digests can take a day)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151016013912.B15983>