CPU frequency doesn't drop below 1200MHz (like it used to)

2015-05-22 Thread Nikos Vassiliadis
Hi, I just noticed that my CPU's frequency doesn't support dropping below 1200MHz. It used to be able to go down to 150MHz, if I am not mistaken. I'd like it to go down to 600MHz via powerd, like it used to go. This is a month's old 10-STABLE. [nik@moby ~]$ sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq_levels dev.cpu.

Re: CPU frequency doesn't drop below 1200MHz (like it used to)

2015-05-22 Thread Ivan Klymenko
Fri, 22 May 2015 09:33:15 +0200 Nikos Vassiliadis написав: > Hi, > > I just noticed that my CPU's frequency doesn't support dropping > below 1200MHz. It used to be able to go down to 150MHz, if I am > not mistaken. I'd like it to go down to 600MHz via powerd, like > it used to go. This is a mont

FreeBSD_STABLE_10-i386 - Build #90 - Failure

2015-05-22 Thread jenkins-admin
FreeBSD_STABLE_10-i386 - Build #90 - Failure: Check console output at https://jenkins.freebsd.org/job/FreeBSD_STABLE_10-i386/90/ to view the results. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To

Re: CPU frequency doesn't drop below 1200MHz (like it used to)

2015-05-22 Thread Nikos Vassiliadis
On 05/22/15 09:42, Ivan Klymenko wrote: Try changing the options in /boot/device.hints hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled="0" hint.p4tcc.0.disabled="0" Thanks Ivan, now it works as it did before! ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.fre

Re: CPU frequency doesn't drop below 1200MHz (like it used to)

2015-05-22 Thread Kimmo Paasiala
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > Fri, 22 May 2015 09:33:15 +0200 > Nikos Vassiliadis написав: > >> Hi, >> >> I just noticed that my CPU's frequency doesn't support dropping >> below 1200MHz. It used to be able to go down to 150MHz, if I am >> not mistaken. I'd like it to g

FreeBSD_STABLE_10-i386 - Build #91 - Fixed

2015-05-22 Thread jenkins-admin
FreeBSD_STABLE_10-i386 - Build #91 - Fixed: Check console output at https://jenkins.freebsd.org/job/FreeBSD_STABLE_10-i386/91/ to view the results. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To u

Re: CPU frequency doesn't drop below 1200MHz (like it used to)

2015-05-22 Thread Ian Smith
On Fri, 22 May 2015 16:28:49 +0300, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > Fri, 22 May 2015 09:33:15 +0200 > Nikos Vassiliadis ÿÿ: > >> Hi, >> >> I just noticed that my CPU's frequency doesn't support dropping >> below 1200MHz. It used to be

Re: CPU frequency doesn't drop below 1200MHz (like it used to)

2015-05-22 Thread Kimmo Paasiala
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Ian Smith wrote: > On Fri, 22 May 2015 16:28:49 +0300, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Ivan Klymenko wrote: >> Fri, 22 May 2015 09:33:15 +0200 >> Nikos Vassiliadis яя: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I just noticed that my CPU's freque

Re: CPU frequency doesn't drop below 1200MHz (like it used to)

2015-05-22 Thread Stefan Esser
Am 22.05.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Nikos Vassiliadis: > Hi, > > I just noticed that my CPU's frequency doesn't support dropping > below 1200MHz. It used to be able to go down to 150MHz, if I am > not mistaken. I'd like it to go down to 600MHz via powerd, like > it used to go. This is a month's old 10-

Re: CPU frequency doesn't drop below 1200MHz (like it used to)

2015-05-22 Thread Adrian Chadd
Hi, The whole point of throttling on modern hardware isn't to get really low clock rates, it's to deal with being out of thermal envelope. But, the modern intel cores will do that for you without OS involvement. So, you don't have to actually use p4tcc and it may actually configure your hardware

Re: CPU frequency doesn't drop below 1200MHz (like it used to)

2015-05-22 Thread Kevin Oberman
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi, > > The whole point of throttling on modern hardware isn't to get really > low clock rates, it's to deal with being out of thermal envelope. > > But, the modern intel cores will do that for you without OS involvement. > > So, you don't