Hi, having seen on the cpufreq(4) man page that there is more than one driver that is currently supported. In particular having a centrino processor, i would like to use the est driver. Currently, by default, the running driver is the one that comes with acpi (AFAIU), and i'm using powerd to control the cpu frequency in adaptive mode. In particular doing comparison with the linux case in which i have cpufreq with speedstep-centrino driver and the ondemand governor, in this case the system is much more responsive and also the fans runs much more quieter (although i cannot rely on proven data since i don't know any benchmark program). In particular i understood that the ondemand governor responds to the system much faster that powerd is able to do. Is there someone who can share some impression or thoughts? Best regards, MC
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:37:43PM +0100, Marco Calviani wrote:> Hi, > having seen on the cpufreq(4) man page that there is more than one > driver that is currently supported. In particular having a centrino > processor, i would like to use the est driver. Currently, by default, > the running driver is the one that comes with acpi (AFAIU), and i'm > using powerd to control the cpu frequency in adaptive mode.You have to load the cpufreq.ko module at boot. Adding that line: cpufreq_load = "YES" to /boot/loader.conf should be OK.> In particular doing comparison with the linux case in which i have > cpufreq with speedstep-centrino driver and the ondemand governor, in > this case the system is much more responsive and also the fans runs > much more quieter (although i cannot rely on proven data since i don't > know any benchmark program). In particular i understood that the > ondemand governor responds to the system much faster that powerd is > able to do. > > Is there someone who can share some impression or thoughts?powerd need some rework in order to get it working properly. There is one FreeBSD project on that subject if you are interrested. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.
Hi Bruno, > > 2) sorry what about the point that we were discussing above? The high> > number of transition you were explaining me, are present in the actual > > implementation of powerd, and if not, why? > > It's not present under powerd for the simple fact that to be efficient > in term of not being too intrusive (kernel to user data transfers, etc), > powerd can only provide a limited number of check per second (at this > time, 2 per second). But the current algorithm present in powerd is > not well suited in that case. You have to wait one demi-second > for the processor being put to full speed if the system was idle > before. >Are there on the horizon any sort of plans to implement a newer and more efficient algorithm to increase the number of transition per second? Sorry but i've not understood why linux-cpufreqd is able to cope with those without being so intrusive..... Best regards, MC