From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: [PATCH] Updated: Dynamic Tick version 050408-1 - C-state measures Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:54:23 +0200 Message-ID: <42675C2F.2030500@suse.de> References: <20050407082136.GF13475@atomide.com> <4255A7AF.8050802@tuxrocks.com> <4255B247.4080906@tuxrocks.com> <20050408062537.GB4477@atomide.com> <20050408075001.GC4477@atomide.com> <42564584.4080606@tuxrocks.com> <42566C22.4040509@suse.de> <20050408115535.GI4477@atomide.com> <42651C38.6090807@suse.de> <20050419210958.GE25328@elf.ucw.cz> <20050420200109.GE16352@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050420200109.GE16352@atomide.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Pavel Machek , Frank Sorenson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Arjan van de Ven , Martin Schwidefsky , Andrea Arcangeli , George Anzinger , Thomas Gleixner , john stultz , Zwane Mwaikambo , Lee Revell , ML ACPI-devel , Bodo Bauer , Andi Kleen List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Pavel Machek [050419 14:10]: >>Hi! >> >>>The machine is a Pentium M 2.00 GHz, supporting C0-C4 processor power states. >>>The machine run at 2.00 GHz all the time. >>.. >>>_passing bm_history=0xFFFFFFFF (default) to processor module:_ >>> >>>Average current the last 470 seconds: *1986mA* (also measured better >>>values ~1800, does battery level play a role?!?) >>Probably yes. If voltage changes, 2000mA means different ammount of power. > > Thomas, thanks for doing all the stats and patches to squeeze some > real power savings out of this! :) > > We should display both average mA and average Watts with pmstats. > BTW, I've posted Thomas' version of pmstats as pmstats-0.2.gz to > muru.com also. > >>>(cmp. ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/trenn/dyn_tick_c_states/measures_C4_machine/1000_HZ_bm_history_FFFFFFFF) >>> >>> >>>_passing bm_history=0xFF to processor module:_ >>> >>>Average current the last 190 seconds: *1757mA* >>>(cmp. ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/trenn/dyn_tick_c_states/measures_C4_machine/1000_HZ_bm_history_FF) >>>(Usage count could be bogus, as some invokations could not succeed >>>if bm has currently been active). >>Ok. >> >>>idle_ms == 100, bm_promote_bs == 30 >>>Average current the last 80 seconds: *1466mA* >>>(cmp. >>>ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/trenn/dyn_tick_c_states/measures_C4_machine/tony_dyn_tick_processor_idle_100_bm_30) >>Very nice indeed. That seems like ~5W saved, right? That might give >>you one more hour of battery life.... > > Depending on your battery capacity. But looking at the average Watts > on the first 8 lines of the two stats above: > > 1000_HZ_bm_history_FFFFFFFF: > (21.43 + 23.32 + 23.32 + 21.71 + 21.71 + 23.84 + 23.84 + 22.62) / 8 > = 22.724W > > tony_dyn_tick_processor_idle_100_bm_30: > (16.07 + 16.07 + 16.00 + 16.00 + 16.08 + 16.08 + 16.29 + 16.29) / 8 > = 16.11W > > And then comparing these two: > 22.72 / 16.11 = 1.4103 > > So according to my calculations this should provide about 1.4 times > longer battery life compared to what you were getting earlier... > That is assuming system is mostly idle, of course. > Be aware that speedstep was off (2.0 GHz). When CPU frequency is controlled you won't have that much enhancement anymore ... Thomas