From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261830AbVGUSdk (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:33:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261841AbVGUSdk (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:33:40 -0400 Received: from pne-smtpout1-sn1.fre.skanova.net ([81.228.11.98]:23483 "EHLO pne-smtpout1-sn1.fre.skanova.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261830AbVGUSdk (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:33:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:33:27 +0200 From: Voluspa To: Jesper Juhl Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.13-rc3 Battery times at 100/250/1000 Hz = Zero difference Message-Id: <20050721203327.2f82eed8.lista1@telia.com> In-Reply-To: <9a8748490507211114227720b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050721200448.5c4a2ea0.lista1@telia.com> <9a8748490507211114227720b0@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:14:32 +0200 Jesper Juhl wrote: > On 7/21/05, Voluspa wrote: [...] > > > Ok, so with an idle machine, different HZ makes no noticeable > difference, but I'd suspect things would be different if the machine > was actually doing some work. I first thought about loading with a loop of md5sum /somedir, play a wav, fetch a couple of webpages etc. But since the talk has been that the powersave would come from CPU sleep between "ticks" (I know, I know, it's not ticks) not having to wake up so often, I decided against a load. > Would be more interresting to see how long it lasts with a light load > and with a heavy load. I won't do that unless heavily beaten ;-) The battery charge time is 2h10 minutes... Mvh Mats Johannesson --