Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:17:31 +0200 From: Stefan =?iso-8859-1?Q?E=DFer?= <se@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeffrey Katcher <jmkatcher@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Any Interest in Load-Adaptive Power Daemon? Message-ID: <20040427091731.GA1337@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20040426223827.38541.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040426223827.38541.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-04-26 15:38 -0700, Jeffrey Katcher <jmkatcher@yahoo.com> wrote: > I have something passable running now, though it's actually a hacked version of > wmcpuload (now wmcpuclock) so I can watch status and history. My question is: > Does it actually makes any difference in power consumption? Does your system support reporting an estimate of the remaining battery life via some hw.acpi.cpu systcl value (sorry, can't easily check the name of the parameter on my notebook right now). I have found, that dimming the display or throttling the CPU leads to an updated estimate after about one minute of delay on my Dell D800 ... > I raise and lower the clock speed (via sysctl ACPI MIB stuff) according to use. > The system does in fact feel correspondingly faster or slower. However, once > the > fan comes on, it never goes off again and I can't seem to override this via > sysctl. Is this just T40 ACPI BIOS bogosity (running 2.02 I think)? I just > seems > like fan power consumption would be the big hog on an otherwise idle system. How about just making the patches available for testing ? Regards, STefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040427091731.GA1337>