That was a little harsh Chris... I dunno about you but at least Im trying here buddy, I dont see you jumping in with both feet to help us out? Next time i want your opinion, I'll ask for it.

Jon Bradbury wrote:

Who moderates the moderators?


ooooh creepy thought

You said it.

andrewbadera wrote:

Jon Bradbury wrote:

Who moderates the moderators?


ooooh creepy thought

You said it.

Andrew, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to recognise irony. Now, come on, stop being a prat and become a true member of the community. Contribute something positive, instead of sitting on the sidelines and making snide remarks.

Thanks

JonB

Isn't p4-clockmod something to do with power-saving? Have you noticed any worsening of battery life since getting rid of it?

rs-px, p4_clockmod is the driver used by cpufreq to allow so-called dynamic CPU frequency adjustments, but as many of us have mentioned it is of no real use on the eeePC since it implements ODCM/On Demand Frequency Modulation for the Celeron M. Therefore if desired, both modules can be removed.

For what it's worth, on my eeePC out of the box cpufreq was set to 'performance' mode, which disables ODCM and results in the processor running at 900 Mhz (i.e 630mhz actual speed), so unless I have a newer version of the OS than other's most have never seen the supposed power-saving capabilities of ODCM/p4_clockmod.  Most importantly: ODCM is not implemented into Windows when using a Celeron M...so you know it's a pretty much useless 'feature'

Including yourself, there are many other's who have had their eeePC for a longer duration and have contributed (acurate) information pertaining to the p4_clockmod module. Here are a few that I discovered today (I'll be the first to admit that I do not read every post on the forum )


Walltiger's post: http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?pid=22043#p22043

The idle of your EEE should be just about as cool as the idle of your EEE when its clocked down to 112.5mhz.  The reason for this is because the cpu frequency and voltage do not change, there is no change in the amount of clock cycles that your system processes during a 1 second interval.  What happens is that when you use "p4-clockmod" to drop the frequency to 112.5mhz all it does is activate the thermal throttling section of the cpu, and all that section does is introduce HALT steps into the cpu's instruction list.   Since Linux idles the cpu with halt steps when not busy, there shouldn't be much difference in temperatures.

Of course you could force the EEE to stay at 225mhz using "sudo cpufreq-set -u 225mhz -d 225mhz -g performance" and *if* you leave the machine sitting idle it will likely be just as warm as if you left it at the frequency at the default 900mhz (even though the 900 is not really 900, unless you are lucky and bios 8804 works for you).  Again the reason for this is because the cpu throttling is forcing the cpu to process halt instructions(And not actually changing the cpu speed), the same instructions linux runs on the cpu when it is not busy.
I've run my EEE using the "ondemand" cpu speed governor for hours of light usage, and have noticed no improvement in battery life.  I did notice however, that the machine is significantly more latent  when launching applications or doing anything that requires any amount of processing power as the forced halt instructions obviously slow down the machine a great deal.  I myself am more in favor of letting Linux run it's idle loop(halt instructions) at the default speed rather than dealing with increased usage latencies of forced halt instructions.

The cpu in the EEE consumes the same wattage running idle at 900mhz(630 real) as it does running idle at the 'scaled' frequency of 112.5mhz, because the actual frequency *does not change* it's just the forced execution of halt instructions.  Halt instructions do save power; when a halt instruction is executed the cpu gets a bit of 'rest' where it consumes significantly less power than if it was executing a complex SSE2 instruction.  The thing to determine in this case is if a cpu being forced to idle 85% of the time (or whatever it is that we set the throttle to) is more electrically efficient than letting linux fill up the remaining cpu cycles with the halt command.  It is possible that forcing halt steps will increase battery life very marginally, but the difference is likely so marginal and the performance hit so much greater that in the end it doesn't make throttling the cpu particularly desirable

midtoad's post: http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?pid=22047#p22047

SmallFootprint wrote:
Let's try to get a quantitative measure of the temperature at 900 MHz and at 112 MHz!  Put a thermometer on the eee-pc's keyboard?

Room temp: 21C
temp of keyboard top at space key using alcohol thermometer (-35 - +50C range)
- after 15 min. at idle (112.5 MHz, CPU utilisation 5-10%): 36.5C
- after 15 min. at 900 MHz, CPU utilisation 80% (youtube videos):  35.0C !!

Last edited by NoeeePC4MeWellMaybe... (2007-11-24 10:16:44 pm)

can i undo the the comand i just entered.......


Now, if you do this in Linux:
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_governors
Tells you the available cgovernors of CPU Frequency Scaling
ondemand will do it for you
Performance will always run at max


i want to turn this off or undo whatever i did, just in case it causes damage.

I'm kind of a new, but what I'm getting from this thread is that there is really no way to clock the CPU to 900 mhz in default xandros?

No, no, no. Do ask questions in the current thread. New threads that are duplicates of old ones are Bad.