On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 07:27 -0700, Ian Smith wrote:
> I wonder if that explains why setting C3 on aforesaid T23 has no
> effect
> (in terms of dev.cpu.0.cx_usage indicating any time spent in C3)
> unless
> the machine happened to be booted up on battery, in which case C3 is
> shown as working wh
Andriy Gapon wrote:
> I would like to propose the following change for review and testing:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/acpi_cpu_cx_lowest.diff
I just tested this on a laptop that jumps between reporting only
C1, C1 and C2, and C1 through C3; in all cases your patch does
the right thing, so t
On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 03:22 -0700, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> I would like to propose the following change for review and testing:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/acpi_cpu_cx_lowest.diff
Very nice. After a review I went ahead and applied it for testing. All
seems to be well on battery and A/C on my
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 13:22:49 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> I would like to propose the following change for review and testing:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/acpi_cpu_cx_lowest.diff
>
> The idea is to separate effective cx_lowest (the limit that the idling code
> should not currently exceed
on 08/07/2012 19:49 Nate Lawson said the following:
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:11 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> acpi_cpu.c has a block of code to write CST_CNT to SMI_CMD, but the block is
>> under #ifdef notyet. It seems that the code was added that many years ago
>> and
>> never enabled.
>> Now, ju
