Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:14:47 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> To: John Long <fbsd2@sstec.com> Cc: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Subject: Re: Powerd and est / eist functionality Message-ID: <20100326091447.GA91547@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20100325235505.031e8338@mail.sstec.com> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20100324134153.032459d8@mail.sstec.com> <1269310984.00232724.1269300005@10.7.7.3> <1269310984.00232724.1269300005@10.7.7.3> <5.2.1.1.2.20100324134153.032459d8@mail.sstec.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20100325235505.031e8338@mail.sstec.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 01:20:19AM -0700, John Long wrote: > >Yes you're only getting p4tcc throttling as Alexander points out. You'll > >need to get est working to get power reduction from lower frequencies, > >which likely won't correspond to these f/8 step throttling frequencies. > > > >As Jeremy suggested, here's how to turn throttling off, and something > >like what you could expect with est working: > >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-March/055666.html > > from link: > I would recommend you to disable it by setting: > hint.p4tcc.0.disabled=1 > hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled=1 > > I get unknown oid on both. Not sure how to disable p4tcc here. What > I have to work with. These are /boot/loader.conf tunables, not sysctl. I'm pretty sure I stated that in my previous mail...? > Bios is most recent, has EIST, c1e and c2e I believe enabled. That > seems to do the best all by itself. Maybe It does no good to beat a > dead horse?? :-) I see an ITE IT8718F-S chip on board. mbmon does > work somewhat but its code is way old and does not see the newer > chip versions. some good docs with mbmon in usr/local/share/docs > tho.. > %mbmon -d -A > Summary of Detection: > * ISA monitor(s): > ** Nat.Semi.Con. Chip LM78 found. > ** Int.Tec.Exp. Chip IT8705F/IT8712F or SIS950 found > > vcore is 1.14 now but most of the rest are not correct readings. It > is 1.28 without bios settings enabled. > It never gets lower. Probably if I declock it below 2.93. 1.05 is > what I was hoping to go down to or lower at 365mhz. > > %mbmon > Temp.= 191.0, 0.0, 0.0; Rot.= 874, 3358, 2657 > Vcore = 1.14, 1.92; Volt. = 3.31, 4.92, 1.09, -14.19, -6.12 > > Temp.= 191.0, 0.0, 0.0; Rot.= 874, 3358, 2657 > Vcore = 1.15, 1.92; Volt. = 3.31, 4.92, 1.09, -14.19, -6.12 > % > %powerd -n adp > %mbmon > Temp.= 191.0, 0.0, 0.0; Rot.= 874, 3358, 2657 > Vcore = 1.18, 1.92; Volt. = 3.31, 4.92, 1.22, -14.19, -6.12 > > Temp.= 191.0, 0.0, 0.0; Rot.= 874, 3358, 2657 > Vcore = 1.14, 1.92; Volt. = 3.31, 4.92, 1.16, -14.19, -6.12 Ignore all of the above values -- mbmon doesn't work properly with your board, or that sub-revision of IT chip. It's that simple. Re-read the rant I sent you for explanation; I already covered all the bases. :-) I disagree about the mbmon docs -- they're more like chaotic brain dumps or scribbled notes than actual coherent, well-written instructions or details. That said, I have utmost respect for SHIMIZU Yoshifumi and his efforts/work. I'm willing to make an exception here. If you can get the following information from the motherboard manufacturer, I'd be willing to add support for your board to bsdhwmon. What I need: 1) The exact H/W monitoring IC they use (not what mbmon says, and not what's silkscreened on the chip), 2) If the H/W monitoring IC is tied in to SMBus, 3) What the SMBus slave address is they chose for the H/W IC 4) Output of "kenv | grep smbios" from your system. Assuming all of the above meets necessary criteria, I can probably add support for this board to bsdhwmon. I have only slight qualms/concerns adding consumer boards to bsdhwmon, but the big kicker is that the board **must** have an actual H/W monitoring IC tied/wired to SMBus. I *will not* use the old LPC/ISA (/dev/io) infrastructure. > It jumped up in vcore a little there with powerd. C1E and C2E which > include P-states are what I am really after and I think that the > bios by itself provides those changes better than any other changes > in these settings. ...and this would fall under the est(4) subset driver for cpufreq(4). -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100326091447.GA91547>