On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:23:52PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote: > Bruno Ducrot wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:05:04AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote: > > > >>Marco Calviani wrote: > >> > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>2005/11/30, Bruno Ducrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> > >>> > >>>>You have to load the cpufreq.ko module at boot. > >>>>Adding that line: > >>>>cpufreq_load = "YES" > >>>>to /boot/loader.conf > >>>>should be OK. > >>> > >>> > >>>I have that line in that position, and it seems working. The point is > >>>that i would like to change the driver and use (AFAIU) a better driver > >>>for my system (est). > >>>In particular i have: > >>> > >>>dev.cpu.0.%desc: ACPI CPU > >>>dev.cpu.0.%driver: cpu > >>>dev.cpu.0.%location: handle=\_PR_.CPU0 > >>>dev.cpu.0.%pnpinfo: _HID=none _UID=0 > >>>dev.cpu.0.%parent: acpi0 > >>> > >>>Maybe i didn't understood well: but what i have to do to use the Intel > >>>Enhanced SpeedStep driver? > >> > >>You should send the full output of "sysctl dev.cpu". There is no > >>cpufreq driver (est, acpi_perf, or other) driver running. Perhaps look > >>at your dmesg to see if one is probing/attaching. > >> > >>If you are using acpi and load cpufreq.ko, you've got all the cpufreq > >>drivers in one package. The right one for your platform will > >>automatically probe/attach. > >> > >> > >>>>powerd need some rework in order to get it working properly. There > >>>>is one FreeBSD project on that subject if you are interrested. > >>> > >>>Well, thanks i'm very interested, although i'm not at all experienced > >>>in kernel programming.... > >>> > >>>I'm not inside this issue, but it would not be possible to "emulate" > >>>the behaviour of the ondemand governor? (sorry if this question makes > >>>no sense) > >> > >>I have no idea what you mean by "on-demand governor". The only > >>automated control of cpu speed is either by the BIOS (which we can't > >>control) or the TM/TM2 (and that one is heat-based, not load-based). > >> > > > > > >The ondemand governor is basically an implemation of the following > >algorithm: > > > >There is a counter, say count. > > > >at each given fixed intervall: > >if (idle less than a watermark) { > > frequency full > > reinitialise count to 10 > >} else if (idle more than another watermark) { > > decrement count > > if count is 0 { > > down one step the frequency > > } > >else reinitilize count to 10 > > > > > >Note that in the latter case, the down step is performed only > >after 10 such comparison. In other word, intervall is ten times > >larger for the down side than the full frequency one. > > > >This work well when you can perform, say, 20 to 50 transitions per > >second. Otherwise, it is pretty bad. > > > > Send me a URL to the datasheet that says Intel implemented this.
http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/195910.htm?prn=Y > That algorithm is basically what powerd does. So just run powerd. Indeed. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"