Ondrej Zary wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of
old systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should
have said: 99% of desktops with the capability to do ACPI sleep have
at least one USB device attached (usually a mouse).
rainbow@pentium:~$ cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power
active state: C2
max_cstate: C8
bus master activity: 00000000
states:
C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--]
latency[000] usage[00052470]
*C2: type[C2] promotion[--] demotion[C1]
latency[090] usage[02699149]
This is PCPartner TXB820DS motherboard (Socket 7, i430TX) with 1998
Award BIOS and C-states seem to work fine. I've tested it in Windows 98
some time ago - the CPU is almost cold when idle with ACPI enabled and
hot with ACPI disabled (that's partly caused by the fact that Windows 9x
does not HLT the CPU when idle). With Pentium 100MHz in the socket and
ACPI enabled, I could even touch the CPU (without heatsink) without
burning my fingers.
Ok I stand corrected, I had no idea there were machines that old where
ACPI worked correctly in Linux.
Do you see the same kind of heat reduction in Linux as Win98? What HZ
value are you using, as the latency for entering C2 on your machine
looks pretty substantial (Your C2 almost looks like a new machine's C3
state, which is supposedly the first level where substantial power
savings occur on a new machines).
- Jim Bruce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
- Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
|
|