From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D1AAj-0001Ji-4K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:23:55 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D1AAX-0001E2-8G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:23:44 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D1AAW-00019O-N1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:23:40 -0500 Received: from [66.124.73.250] (helo=marvin.brittainweb.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1D19qU-0002mW-DF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:02:58 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marvin.brittainweb.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j1FKwVwX018471 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:58:31 -0800 Message-ID: <421262B1.2080502@brittainweb.org> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:59:29 -0800 From: Jason Brittain MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] kqemu vs Standard References: <421245A0.2080502@brittainweb.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Magnus Damm wrote: >> >>Interesting! I wrote the email about all this while riding to work on >>the subway. So, when I did the "cat /proc/cpuinfo", I was indeed running >>on battery power. But, currently, I'm not, and still says the same thing. >> >>Anyone know what the deal is with that? Is that an accurate number >>saying that my cpu is throttled down? Could I make it run faster then? >>Hmmmm.. > > On a 2.6-kernel with cpufreq enabled, have a look at the files in > "/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/". Try to echo "powersave" or > "performance" to scaling_governor. Then look at "/proc/cpuinfo" to see > the actual MHz. Ahh, yeah. I did: # echo "performance" >> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor And now my /proc/cpuinfo looks like: processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 13 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.80GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 1799.038 cache size : 2048 KB fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe est tm2 bogomips : 3563.52 BUT, I retried my tests and the performance numbers/timings came out the same. > You can also play around with acpi throttling in > "/proc/acpi/processor/*/throttling". I guess * should be replaced with > CPU0, but on my crappy laptop with wierd acpi info CPU1 must be used > instead of CPU0. > > Also, try cpufreqd or cpudyn to adjust the cpu frequency on the fly. Thanks for the tips on those. I'll look into them. Darryl Dixon wrote: > That's just the natural effect of the Speedstep technology throttling > back the cpu to lower heat because you aren't using many cpu cycles at > the moment (you aren't pushing your laptop very hard :). If you were to > do something like, say, compile Wine, and while it is compiling cat > /proc/cpuinfo, you would see that the speed is up at 1800MHz. I believe this, since the CPU performance turned out the same either way. More good info.. thanks! -- Jason Brittain