Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:02:13 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/cpufreq est.c Message-ID: <3709.1205762533@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:33:47 -0400." <200803170933.48212.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3709.1205762533>