From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261379AbVHBFrp (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 01:47:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261381AbVHBFrp (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 01:47:45 -0400 Received: from mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.184]:12961 "EHLO mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261379AbVHBFre (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 01:47:34 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] i386 dynamic ticks 2.6.13-rc4 (code reordered) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:49:48 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 Cc: tony@atomide.com, tuukka.tikkanen@elektrobit.com, ck@vds.kolivas.org References: <200508021443.55429.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200508021443.55429.kernel@kolivas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508021549.48711.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 02:43 pm, Con Kolivas wrote: > This has slightly more build fixes than the last one I posted and boots and > runs fine on my laptop. So far at absolute idle it appears this pentiumM > 1.7 is claiming to have _25%_ more battery life. I'll need to investigate > further to see the real power savings. As a crude data point of idle system running a full kde desktop environment on powersave with minimal backlight and just chatting on IRC I find it's just under 10% battery life difference. I have confirmed in the past the accuracy of the remaining capacity exported by the battery and the time to complete discharge. This saving is similar in magnitude to the 1000->100Hz savings of 7% mentioned on other threads. While nothing like the 25% initially suggested it is still significant. Anyone with a more accurate means of testing this interested? Cheers, Con