From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D19II-0002Jn-IX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:27:40 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D19I7-0002EO-Fu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:27:28 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D19I4-00028P-KD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:27:24 -0500
Received: from [64.233.184.207] (helo=wproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D18x5-0006UW-2X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:05:43 -0500
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 36so61543wri
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <aec7e5c3050215120571875355@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:05:40 +0100
From: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] kqemu vs Standard
In-Reply-To: <421245A0.2080502@brittainweb.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0502151927070.645-100000@thinkpad.gardas.net>
	<421245A0.2080502@brittainweb.org>
Reply-To: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:55:28 -0800, Jason Brittain
<jason@brittainweb.org> wrote:
> Karel Gardas wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Jason Brittain wrote:
> >
> >>Here's my real (laptop) hardware's CPU info:
> >># cat /proc/cpuinfo
> >>processor       : 0
> >>vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
> >>cpu family      : 6
> >>model           : 13
> >>model name      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.80GHz
> >>stepping        : 6
> >>cpu MHz         : 599.679
> >
> > I just wonder, but do you usually work with CPU clocked-down? Or have you
> > tested running on battery?
> 
> 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.

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.

/ magnus