-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:01:42 +0900 Mattia Dongili <malat...@linux.it> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 12:52:07PM +0100, Andreas Glaeser wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Package: cpufreqd > > Version: 2.4.2-1 > > Severity: important > > > > *** Please type your report below this line *** > > > > Installing cpufreqd shows paradox results. Without cpufreqd CPU-frequency > > scaling > > works perfectly fine on my PC. Once it is installed, all CPU-cores run at > > full speed. > > I do not like this at all. Changing the configuration file according to > > what my CPU > > actually provides (see below) did not have any effect. > > I do not know enough to tell, why CPU-frequency-scaling works by default on > > my system > > when newly installed, but does not work anymore, once cpufreqd is > > installed. On other > > systems I saw different outcomes, when chanching /etc/cpufreqd.conf. Maybe > > this is > > due to some shortcoming of CPU-sensors ? > > The only way to revert this seems to be uninstalling cpufreqd again and > > rebooting the > > machine, then everything is as it was before. > > Hi, > could you include the output of `cat /proc/cpuinfo`? > CPU frequency scaling these days is done automatically by the kernel > using the ondemand governor that just scales the speed based on CPU > load. > If that's all you want to do then you don't need cpufreqd. cpufreqd is > more aimed at special needs when you need to use more inputs than just > the cpu load to adjust the CPU speed (e.g. temperature, battery, other > sensors). > > Looking at your configuration you're telling cpufreqd that as long as > you're on mains power you want full high speed CPU. > WHen configuring cpufreqd, running the deamon using a very verbose > logging level (eg -V 7) will give you a lot of details about why > cpufreqd applies one policy or the other. > > also, you are not describing what your hardware is :) > > Thanks! You are right, I submitted several installation-reports, but actually none of my own main PC. I regarded this as a security-hole, publishing details of my own hardware for everyday-use . I am going to have another look and submit one in due time. Would you mind having a look at this: 693...@bugs.debian.org It contains another error, the subject should be 'LXDE-variant of Squeeze' of course. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlCiYokACgkQ5+rBHyUt5ws1PwCgoClI/xqeTNe1yghtjMAQRcpu ErgAoKpvkEnQ4IBs7Ivk7gJkN3ku7HEa =OaFU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
