On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:22:38PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:10:33 +0200
> Dominik Brodowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do you use ACPI-based idling? If so, in which state is the CPU in (cat
> > /proc/acpi/processor/*/power ? I suspect that you do not use ACPI (
>From Dominik Brodowski on Thursday, 07 July, 2005:
>On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:51:17PM -0500, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
>> >Just a latest question: can be p4-clockmod used together with
>> >speedstep-centrino? If not, would it make any sense to patch
>> >speedstep-centrino to use this feature too?
>>
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:34:14PM -0500, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
> >From Dominik Brodowski on Thursday, 07 July, 2005:
> >On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:51:17PM -0500, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
> >> >Just a latest question: can be p4-clockmod used together with
> >> >speedstep-centrino? If not, would it m
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:10:33 +0200
Dominik Brodowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you use ACPI-based idling? If so, in which state is the CPU in (cat
> /proc/acpi/processor/*/power ? I suspect that you do not use ACPI (else
> you wouldn't need the table-based approach) or that the ACPI-based id
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:22:25PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This hasn't been seen to save any power whatsoever that I've seen.
>
> It drops down power rating by 1500-1800mW on my Toshiba Satellite A50
> while idling at 400MHz.
Do you use ACPI-based idling? If so, in which state is the
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:51:17PM -0500, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
> >Just a latest question: can be p4-clockmod used together with
> >speedstep-centrino? If not, would it make any sense to patch
> >speedstep-centrino to use this feature too?
>
> I'm a little confused. How is this different from th
>Just a latest question: can be p4-clockmod used together with
>speedstep-centrino? If not, would it make any sense to patch
>speedstep-centrino to use this feature too?
I'm a little confused. How is this different from the ACPI CPU throttling
states (/proc/acpi/processor/CPUn/limit to set, thr
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:22:25PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This hasn't been seen to save any power whatsoever that I've seen.
>
> It drops down power rating by 1500-1800mW on my Toshiba Satellite A50
> while idling at 400MHz.
>
> > I've heard a few reports that it reduces heat
Pedro Ramalhais found another interesting thing in:
ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/manuals/25366816.pdf
that's the IA32_CLOCK_MODULATION (still called
MSR_IA32_THERM_CONTROL in include/asm-i386/msr.h, and I think this would
need a fix) register, that let set a reduced CPU duty cycle. So
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:06:48 -0400
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:00:27PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Enabling, say, a duty cycle of 12.5% means that the CPU chip will be
> driven
> > by clock just one time every eight, thus reducing power consumption
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:00:27PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Enabling, say, a duty cycle of 12.5% means that the CPU chip will be driven
> by clock just one time every eight, thus reducing power consumption and
> temperature (and it speeds down dramatically the CPU, too =).
>
> I tes
11 matches
Mail list logo
