From: Walter Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 05:52:12PM -0700, Walter Barnes wrote:
>>> From: Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> >Unfortunately, /sys seems to be forever changing - what worked 2
>>> >releases ago might have been renamed by now, so if it _isn't_
>>> >working, try using the different path to ignore_nice_load and see if
>>> >that helps. ISTR that the logic was reversed at some point, so it
>>> >might not be necessary.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll use the new path; however, I'm not up on all the acronyms used in
>>> mailing lists so I don't know what ISTR means.
>>>
>>http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ISTR (only the first two
>>definitions, for any list I've ever been on).
>
>Thanks, I'll bookmark the site as I may need to refer to it often.
>
>>So, you have tested that it isn't working correctly for you ? My
>>own bootscript has a comment that ignore_nice was for 2.6.12
>>possibly through to 2.6.15 (in other words, definitely not required
>>for 2.6.16). For me (on an amd x86_64) ondemand works - if I untar
>>the gcc sources and check /proc/cpuinfo from another term, the speed
>>jumps from 1000 MHz to 2000, stays there, briefly falls back to
>>1800 after untarring finishes, then drops to 1000 again shortly
>>afterwards.
>
>Turns out the docs for freq governors were right under my nose; I found
>Documentation/cpu-freq/governors.txt in the kernel source yesterday. It
>explains all the tunables available for both the ondemand and conservative
>governors. The ignore_nice_load affects how the kernel calculates usage. If
>set to 1 processes with a nice value are ignored and treated as idle time.
>
>Also, from that document I've been able to modify my cpufreq bootscript to
>accept 'battery' and 'ac' as arguments. When the script is called with
>'battery' the gov is tuned to favor low freq by setting up and down usage
>thresholds to high values and any change in freq is done in small steps. For
>'ac' higher frequencies are prefered and freq changes are done faster. In
>addition, when on ac the kernel will take longer (take more usage samples)
>before deciding to lower the freq.
>
>ondemand can be tuned in the same way but there is no tunable for down usage
>threshold and freq changes are always done fast (I think it actually
>flip-flops from min to max and back again).
>
>The final step will be installation of apicd to call the script with the right
>arguments whenever the power source changes.
Oooops! That should be acpid :-D
>>> >Wild guess - the Knoppix kernel is quite a bit older than the LFS
>>> >kernel ?
>>>
>>> I should have mentioned this in my original post: I'm using Knoppix 5.1.1
>>> released in Jan of this year
>>> and the kernel is a 2.6 series (might be 2.6.19 but not sure - I'm in
>>> Windows right now and can't check)
>>>
>>I'm guessing that the increased restrictions (limit acpi
>>frequencies to what the bios returns) were probably in the 2.6.18 to
>>2.6.20 timeframe.
>
>With the fine tuning of the conservative governor it may not be neccesary to
>underclock so I will hold off on that for now.
>
>Thanks again for all your help (and the acronym link)
>Walter
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
