3x+ battery life

mhertz · 2013-04-12 15:29:50

In the "old" days, the --holdver switch would fix that issue, but some time ago the situation changed...

Nowadays, makepkg dosen't auto-update pkgver on vsc-packages, and so --holdver is irrelevant now because it's now up to the pkgbuild author if he want pkgver bumped or not, by providing an optional pkgver() function in the pkgbuild, and as the pkgbuild author decided to do that, then you cannot override it, unfortunetelly...

Last edited by mhertz (2013-04-13 01:37:48)

HalosGhost · 2013-04-12 15:35:13

mhertz wrote:

In the "old" days, the --holdver switch would fix that issue, but some time ago the situation changed...
Nowadays, makepkg dosen't auto-update pkgver on vsc-packages, and so --holdver is irrelevant now because it's now up to the pkgbuild author if he want pkgver bumped or not, by providing an optional pkgver() function in the pkgbuild, and as the pkgbuild author decided to do that, then you cannot override it, unfortunetelly...

Actually, that's not quite true. --holdver still functions for VCS packages.

The manpage wrote:

--holdver
When using VCS sources (PKGBUILD(5)) any currently checked out source will not be updated to the latest revision.

All the best,

-HG

Last edited by HalosGhost (2013-04-12 15:45:09)

mhertz · 2013-04-12 16:23:19

Yeah, I know it's still in the man, but if you try and test it, then it has no function whatsoever anymore...

I'm guessing they forgot to remove it after making the pkgver() function to control version-bumps, or else there's a bug I think...

Last edited by mhertz (2013-04-13 01:35:49)

HalosGhost · 2013-04-12 16:25:01

mhertz wrote:

Yeah, I know it's still in the man, but if you try and test it, then it has no function whatsoever anymore...
I'm guessing they forgot to remove it after making the pkgver() function to control version-bumps, or else there's a bug I think...

I believe that would be a bug. If memory serves that line in the manpage was added for the 4.1 update. File a bug report if it doesn't work for you.

All the best,

-HG

mhertz · 2013-04-13 00:30:34

@HalosGhost & adam777

I apologise for posting wrong information!

The --holdver option indeed does work fine, contrary to what I previously stated...

makepkg has for along time ago stripped its vcs-handling and rewritten it, and --holdver was changed to mean something else, but when I read the makepkg man, then I stupidly read it online instead of in the terminal, and there where still the old --holdver description listed unfortunetly..

(HalosGhost even posted to me the new man page section about --holdver, and I didn't even read the paragraph before responding back, because I was sure that I knew allready what it was about from reading it previously...)

Sorry again!

HalosGhost · 2013-04-13 00:47:24

mhertz wrote:

@HalosGhost & adam777
I apologise for posting wrong information!
Sorry again!

Apology accepted. Might be worth-while to strikethrough the parts of your post that are inaccurate to help others avoid being misled.

All the best,

-HG

Last edited by HalosGhost (2013-04-13 00:48:15)

cris9288 · 2013-04-15 19:17:50

I get this message when I execute powerdown

[powerdown] cannot write powersave to /sys/module/pcie_aspm/parameters/policy
[powerdown] cannot write 1 to /sys/module/i915/parameters/i915_enable_rc6

my cpu is

[christian@christian ~]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep name
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2330M CPU @ 2.20GHz
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2330M CPU @ 2.20GHz
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2330M CPU @ 2.20GHz
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2330M CPU @ 2.20GHz

I guess my cpu doesn't support enabling rc6, but according to the wiki, by the output of this command

[christian@christian ~]$ cat /sys/module/pcie_aspm/parameters/policy 
[default] performance powersave

I should be able to us aspm. Should I just try and force it on? In the wiki it says that If it isn't supported and I force it on, there's a chance I could consume more power.

EDIT: Just checked dmesg and I get this

[christian@christian ~]$ dmesg | grep ASPM
[    0.161833] ACPI FADT declares the system doesn't support PCIe ASPM, so disable it
[    0.849803]  pci0000:00: ACPI _OSC support notification failed, disabling PCIe ASPM

I'm not catching any breaks on this machine.

Last edited by cris9288 (2013-04-16 01:19:29)

taylorchu · 2013-04-17 06:18:06

try to force aspm to be on

Army · 2013-04-17 07:51:44

That doesn't necessarily make your laptop consume less power. Yesterday I did a series of tests and it looks like my laptop consumes less power without forcing aspm. I guess in my case there's a reason why aspm isn't enabled by default. To measure the consumed power, I suggest using powerstat, which is in the AUR.

cris9288 · 2013-04-17 22:41:52

It looks like you're right, Army, I drained my battery with and without pcie_aspm=force, and it looks like im slighly better off without the kernel paramter. With aspm forced on, powertop reports a battery discharge consistently over 10 W. It can be as high as 15, as low as 9, but generally in the 10-12 ballpark. I get about 3 hours of battery life (my battery dies at 20% so that doesn't help).

Without, it really doesn't get above 12 W, generally hovering around 7-9 W. This adds about an hour of battery life, depending on my level of use obviously. I really should get a new battery soon.

Unia · 2013-04-18 18:22:45

Taylorchu,

I just noticed you have added power_supply@.service. I'm failing to see what advantage this has over the old method, can you elaborate?

taylorchu · 2013-04-18 21:34:09

udev will kill the script after 3 secs. Using systemd is a way to prevent this(let systemd do the work).

Unia · 2013-04-18 21:40:03

I see, thanks.

nierro · 2013-04-19 08:24:35

taylorchu wrote:

udev will kill the script after 3 secs. Using systemd is a way to prevent this(let systemd do the work).

I don't understand that...udev will launch the script whether your AC state change... what does that mean?
And another thing, your latest commits on git say " add linux 3.9 powercamp support", i couldn't find anything about, can you provide me an article about that?
Thanks!

JoKo · 2013-04-19 10:07:17

Hello, I use version 116.86cecb3-1 from AUR and I have two issues regarding powerdown:

Plug a USB device while in powerdown. If I try to do so (e.g. an Ethernet USB adapter), then the device is not recognized. As a workaround, I run temporarily powerup and switch back to powerdown.
Use of SSD device. I get the following messages whenever I run powerdown or powerup:

[powerdown] cannot run hdparm -B 1 -S 120 /dev/sda2
[powerdown] cannot run hdparm -B 1 -S 120 /dev/sda1

Should I comment out the hdparm options in the scripts completely? What about the readahead and relatime options?

bashnev · 2013-05-18 02:36:07

If your CPU is in the Sandy Bridge family and you're using kernel 3.9.2 then by default the pstate driver is active. This means that you have only two governors available : powersave and performance. Powerup and powerdown won't change the governor as its trying to set the non-existent ondemand governor active.

To rectify this you need to change ondemand to one of the available governors or disable pstate with "intel_pstate=disable" on the kernel line.

Jristz · 2013-05-18 06:30:28

sertain times (mainly without AC) the systemd service is launched 2 times or almos this show the logs, any hint about this??

jakob · 2013-05-18 13:10:56

Just a hint for all those who wish to have a power saving script that allows for storable settings that survive package upgrades, ftw (short for for the watts) might be an interesting option.

OdinEidolon · 2013-05-19 17:20:00

I just want to share my two power{up, down} scripts. They are adapted for my system of course. As I saw Skype was always using 2-3% of the CPU I decided to pull up a KDialog to ask if powerdown should kill it.

Powerdown:
http://pastebin.com/dd7QgTgf

Powerup:
http://pastebin.com/7UCg9axY

OdinEidolon · 2013-06-04 15:38:34

For some reason powerdown seems to be putting some binaries NOT in /usr/bin, and thus will break following the current much-debated update. (see news)

Can anything be done about it? Which are the interested files?

Unia · 2013-06-04 16:15:08

https://github.com/taylorchu/powerdown/ … r/Makefile

All the executables are in /usr/bin?

OdinEidolon · 2013-06-04 16:44:40

Unia wrote:

https://github.com/taylorchu/powerdown/ … r/Makefile
All the executables are in /usr/bin?

I see, but:

pacman -Qqo /bin /sbin /usr/sbin | pacman -Qm -
bootchart2-git 20130314-1
burg-bios-bzr 1844-4
powerdown-git 116.86cecb3-1

Unia · 2013-06-04 16:45:50

Perhaps an outdated version? Try see if an update helps.

EDIT: It is an outdated version. When going to the Makefile's history, it indeed placed files in /usr/sbin.

Last edited by Unia (2013-06-04 16:47:51)

OdinEidolon · 2013-06-04 16:50:41

Unia wrote:

Perhaps an outdated version? Try see if an update helps.
EDIT: It is an outdated version. When going to the Makefile's history, it indeed placed files in /usr/sbin.

That was the case. My bad, sorry!

OdinEidolon · 2013-06-04 16:52:11

OdinEidolon wrote:

I just want to share my two power{up, down} scripts. They are adapted for my system of course. As I saw Skype was always using 2-3% of the CPU I decided to pull up a KDialog to ask if powerdown should kill it.
Powerdown:
http://pastebin.com/dd7QgTgf
Powerup:
http://pastebin.com/7UCg9axY

For some reason when I unplug the power adapter powerdown gets run twice - it asks me to kill skype twice (see quoted links). Does this happen to anyone else?

Arch Linux

#476 2013-04-12 15:29:50

Re: 3x+ battery life

#477 2013-04-12 15:35:13

Re: 3x+ battery life

#478 2013-04-12 16:23:19

Re: 3x+ battery life

#479 2013-04-12 16:25:01

Re: 3x+ battery life

#480 2013-04-13 00:30:34

Re: 3x+ battery life

#481 2013-04-13 00:47:24

Re: 3x+ battery life

#482 2013-04-15 19:17:50

Re: 3x+ battery life

#483 2013-04-17 06:18:06

Re: 3x+ battery life

#484 2013-04-17 07:51:44

Re: 3x+ battery life

#485 2013-04-17 22:41:52

Re: 3x+ battery life

#486 2013-04-18 18:22:45

Re: 3x+ battery life

#487 2013-04-18 21:34:09

Re: 3x+ battery life

#488 2013-04-18 21:40:03

Re: 3x+ battery life

#489 2013-04-19 08:24:35

Re: 3x+ battery life

#490 2013-04-19 10:07:17

Re: 3x+ battery life

#491 2013-05-18 02:36:07

Re: 3x+ battery life

#492 2013-05-18 06:30:28

Re: 3x+ battery life

#493 2013-05-18 13:10:56

Re: 3x+ battery life

#494 2013-05-19 17:20:00

Re: 3x+ battery life

#495 2013-06-04 15:38:34

Re: 3x+ battery life

#496 2013-06-04 16:15:08

Re: 3x+ battery life

#497 2013-06-04 16:44:40

Re: 3x+ battery life

#498 2013-06-04 16:45:50

Re: 3x+ battery life

#499 2013-06-04 16:50:41

Re: 3x+ battery life

#500 2013-06-04 16:52:11

Re: 3x+ battery life

Board footer