Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:18:42 +0100 From: Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@poupinou.org> To: Daniel O'Connor <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: powerd effectiveness Message-ID: <20060113001842.GB16467@poupinou.org> In-Reply-To: <200601131027.38149.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> References: <43C5A261.1020407@rogers.com> <200601131010.59992.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20060112235415.GA16467@poupinou.org> <200601131027.38149.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:27:37AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:24, Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > > Nearly all of the energy going into the CPU is disipated as heat. > > > > Of course. But the goal of powerd is to reduce power comsuption with > > nearly no visible impact on performance. This imply that if the > > runpercent is nearly 100%, then the processor will be put to full > > frequency even though this can imply an overheat situation. > > The role of acpi_thermal is to reduce frequency if the processor is > > too hot, and this imply performance loss if runpercent is high. > > Yes, but the original poster was wondering why their CPU temperature didn't go > down when the clock was (allegedly) very slow. Maybe because the bus disconnect feature on the northbridge is not enabled, and then the processor does not enter a low-power state upon assertion of STPCLK# I think. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060113001842.GB16467>