Prime95 version 27.7 / 27.9

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by KingKurly

You win this round...!

LOL... You have to love cross posting...

This just shows that in software, like mathematics and life, there is usually more than one way to do something....

[LaurV]

@KingKurly:

[Xyzzy]

12.04 LTS:

$ gcc -ansi -Wall test.c 
test.c: In function ‘onBattery’:
test.c:40:25: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘strstr’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
test.c:40:29: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function ‘strstr’ [enabled by default]
test.c:51:17: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘atoi’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
$ ./a.out
AC

We merged in chalsall's code. Unfortunately, we do not have a laptop so we have no way of testing if the battery part works. Sorry!

[Dubslow]

If the file in /sys/ is opened, then his function is guaranteed to return and not check /proc/. This isn't normally an issue, but as chalsall himself told me, handling the errors is the hard part

(You never know if you might open a corrupted file or something silly )

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

(You never know if you might open a corrupted file or something silly )

Sigh... The code is sane.

Since /sys/ is a virtual file system, opening a "corrupted" file in such a situation would mean you've got much bigger issues on your hands than possibly mis-detecting if you're on AC or battery....

[KingKurly]

Odd observations from my stepfather's laptop... it was upgraded to Ubuntu 12.04 LTS not too long ago. For /sys/class/power_supply/AC/online it uses ACAD instead of AC. And for /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/state it has BAT1 instead of BAT0.

A few problems here. First, the old code wouldn't work on his laptop. Second, the new code wouldn't work either. Hrmm... what the heck?

The kernel was 3.2.0-24-generic.

Can anyone else confirm these findings? (Look in /sys/class/power_supply and /proc/acpi/battery)

Edit: I don't think it's a safe assumption that the contents of /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/state are smaller than 180 bytes. Is the code not making that assumption? (I'm mildly rusty on my C.)

[garo]

A feature request. I like the newer version of throttle where you specify the percent of time you want to be running. In Multi core systems where memory may be a bottleneck is it possible to stagger the periods of rest between cores? So if I am running 50 throttle I want one core to be running Prime95 half the time and the other core for the rest. Right now both cores run together and rest together.

[KingKurly]

A friend of mine took a look at the battery detection code and came up with this rendition: https://gist.github.com/60de973a8289...comment-338482

I haven't yet checked how often the battery gets polled... that makes quite a difference in how this should be done.

To sleep, for me.

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by KingKurly

A friend of mine took a look at the battery detection code and came up with this rendition: https://gist.github.com/60de973a8289...comment-338482

I haven't yet checked how often the battery gets polled... that makes quite a difference in how this should be done.

To sleep, for me.

On my laptop, "a few minutes" would be a perfect description of about how long it took to recognize changes. A decent guess would then be that it checks every five minutes.

[Xyzzy]

So if I am running 50 throttle I want one core to be running Prime95 half the time and the other core for the rest. Right now both cores run together and rest together.

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12286

[KingKurly]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

On my laptop, "a few minutes" would be a perfect description of about how long it took to recognize changes. A decent guess would then be that it checks every five minutes.

I decided to look at the code. Looks like every 15 seconds.

./commonc.h:#define TE_BATTERY_CHECK_FREQ     15    /* Check battery every 15 sec. */
./commonb.c:    add_timed_event (TE_BATTERY_CHECK, TE_BATTERY_CHECK_FREQ);