Talk:CPU frequency scaling

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 11:38, 15 September 2012 by Stefanwilkens (talk | contribs) (Move to cpufrequtils)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi, I would like to have some feedback regarding my addition to this page: Cpufrequtils#Cpufrequtils and Laptop Mode Tools.

Thank you.


Laptop mode

I think it's good. What we need, at least in my opinion, is to make this page a bit more pedagogic. As for now I see users becoming confused as to what module(s) they need and how to set it up. A user in the forum misunderstood this wiki page and struggled because he/she did add practically all possible modules to rc.conf.

p4-clockmod + ondemand governor issues

Hello, I'd like to point out that there's an issue with the p4-clockmod driver combined with the ondemand governor, as seen here:

In short, the advice given in this wiki article isn't actually working(anymore) and for a newcomer(like me) there isn't really a working substitute(as in re-compiling the kernel and modules).


I found that acpi events were not processed until I installed acpid and added that to the daemon list (I removed laptop-mode).

Move to cpufrequtils

I'm not sure why this page that specifically covers the cpufrequtils package was moved from cpufrequtils to this more generic title. The article title should match the package/utility described within, in my opinion. -- pointone 18:41, 25 January 2011 (EST)

The page contains incorrect information right now - it confuses the kernel's cpufreq with the userspace cpufrequtils package. All of the stuff on the page about drivers/modules, governors, /sys, etc. is independent of cpufrequtils. cpufrequtils provides a daemon script to set the governors and 3 userspace utilities, which offer similar functionality to the /sys filesystem and powertop. The two methods on the page for using laptop-mode-tools and acpid to set the governor are completely independent of cpufrequtils. I moved the page here after someone resurrected the old version that got merged into this article, because they were right that cpufrequtils != cpufreq, but there was also no reason to have 2 pages describing the same stuff. thestinger 19:29, 25 January 2011 (EST)
I resurrected this page because of the reason mentioned by Thestinger. You only need the kernel modules (and to set a governor other than performance) for frequency scaling to work, any additional tools aren't needed (and thus don't "comply" with The Arch Way). Personally I'd suggest to either collect all tools/daemons on this page in a separate section and have either the pages for all individual tools/daemons redirect to this page or remove all those pages. The other options would be to either have one page with all tools/daemons on it or separate pages for all individual tools/daemons and link them from this page in a separate section. Aaahaaap 14:16, 27 January 2011 (EST)
A clean article explaining the various available modules / governors would get my vote, tools to do additional configuration should have a private section in this same article.
I would suggest something like this:
1 - Configuration (explain the requirements, note that 3.4+ kernels will auto-load and provide users with a working setup)
2 - CPU frequency drivers (detail a list of available drivers, match them to chipsets)
3 - Governors (detail a list of available governors, explain their intended use)
4 - Userspace tools (cpufreq, pm-utils etc etc)
5 - Troubleshooting
We might consider extracting the user-space tools configuration to separate wiki-pages per user-space tool and linking to those articles. I doubt these user-space tools have such expansive features that they require such an approach though, I'd leave them included here. Snug together in a private section. --stefanwilkens (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Troubleshooting - BIOS frequency limitation

I tried to rewrite this section with my very limited knowledge on this topic so there's not so much confusing details about specific hardware and more general explanation. (That I hope is not completely wrong)

Can anyone with more ACPI,hardware,etc.-knowledge give an assessment if the warnings must be so strict. In fact I've used my old thinkpad with a completely dead battery and this "solution" for over two years now without any problems, even not under relative demanding ego-shooters ;)

Just didn't want to ruin other peoples hardware.

It's always nice to get feedback :)

btw. any idea why there is the accuracy template for the whole troubleshooting-section without any reason written there? thx Nonix (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)