From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 6 04:44:10 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A4DC96D for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 04:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2F7664D2B for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 04:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z20so3663807igj.4 for ; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 20:44:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rXFkDrLLZGW/i6ybf4082YTzlvgEAhk68CXiBA5fPJE=; b=xR9X+J2OBs8JjZvHhk/cvevU89nKYL+5jcI/VRhS/xxEgF5u2+dliDvZ2PoJSXcanc 3EPegXHDWrecUV3N/qyrv55xJHf96Pvk7IfWEMbGBq7ldH2zEGEBXb4J6hvPm3jsoMmU YtaVUseT0q5S4iNtCWU1IdH4GqEk+mIWMr4pwidHS3HvD5MpiwOz5A4FPuP++Lynr6E2 6bH08vtvq4Q9Z10CYOcBD7Lwh2AQcpJICk20V8skrPidtFyC9BYV5I1txcGWsoq7YhhO Be7fPDpNomWWUcPNFd6E6BMmFco+06hEHqp4STlsPEHbH3C7saWkQzSaxzZwVQ7bBr7H JrJA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.205.197 with SMTP id fr5mr69481244icb.5.1420519449458; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 20:44:09 -0800 (PST) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.52.19 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 20:44:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54AB5FFB.3090700@obluda.cz> References: <54AB32AD.1070409@ignoranthack.me> <54AB5FFB.3090700@obluda.cz> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 20:44:09 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AHa0lKY0ACMFL-ALwRyIwpaLPsY Message-ID: Subject: Re: Haswell, i3, fail to acpi_throttle fail From: Kevin Oberman To: Dan Lukes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 04:44:10 -0000 On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Dan Lukes wrote: > On 6.1.2015 4:57, Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> acpi_throttle0: on cpu0 >>> acpi_throttle0: P_CNT from P_BLK 0x1810 >>> est0: on cpu0 >>> acpi_throttle1: on cpu1 >>> acpi_throttle1: failed to attach P_CNT >>> device_attach: acpi_throttle1 attach returned 6 >>> >> > Attach to cpu0 successful, but failing on non-zero cpu's ? > > I never tried to analyze it, but I can deny it new issue. > > I never seen other result as far as I remember. > > Dan > I missed that it attached on cpu0. I think this is reality if throttling is done as it was in older CPUs. It required 3 physical pins on the CPU and predates (by some time) multi-core processors. Throttling in FreeBSD refers only to the old external form and is not related in any way to TCC, ST, or EST, all of which also do dynamic CPU Throttling, but in much more effective ways. Since throttling used physical pins, I have doubts that multi-core processors actually allocate three pins per CPU for a technique that is totally obsolete. It might be implemented as a compatibility thing and is really just TCC in disguise or they allocate three pins per chip and throttle all CPUs at once. If it is the latter, the behavior of only one CPU attaching is really more realistic than throttling per CPU. In either case, it is still best to disable it. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com