From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 24 06:02:45 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBFD1065672 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:02:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from frank@esperance-linux.co.uk) Received: from mailout.zetnet.co.uk (mailout.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.47.231]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43018FC1B for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:02:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from frank@esperance-linux.co.uk) Received: from irwell.zetnet.co.uk ([194.247.47.48] helo=zetnet.co.uk) by mailout.zetnet.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KB1c0-0006vZ-DM; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:02:40 +0100 Received: from melon.esperance-linux.co.uk (54-144.adsl.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.54.144]) by zetnet.co.uk (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-9) with ESMTP id m5O62di1013106; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:02:39 +0100 Received: by melon.esperance-linux.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 01E2BFCA4AF; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:02:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:02:33 +0100 From: Frank Shute To: George Hartzell Message-ID: <20080624060233.GA30988@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: George Hartzell , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <18527.62508.451095.415706@almost.alerce.com> <8cb6106e0806231218jcbdffa8jec894b7fb31290c4@mail.gmail.com> <18528.3319.352684.890447@almost.alerce.com> <20080623224658.GA28873@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <18528.31948.654968.52376@almost.alerce.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18528.31948.654968.52376@almost.alerce.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Face: *}~{PHnDTzvXPe'wl_-f%!@+r5; VLhb':*DsX%wEOPg\fDrXWQJf|2\,92"DdS%63t*BHDyQ|OWo@Gfjcd72eaN!4%NE{0]p)ihQ1MyFNtWL X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.3-RELEASE-p2 i386 X-Organisation: 'Esperance Linux' X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (zetnet.co.uk [194.247.46.1]); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:02:39 +0100 (BST) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CPU temp's on core 2 duo, should they be significantly different? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Shute List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:02:45 -0000 On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:49:16PM -0700, George Hartzell wrote: > > Frank Shute writes: > > [...] > > My top on 7.0 says "CPU states:" not "CPU:" > > > > Are you sure you're running on 2 cores? > > > > dmesg will tell you and top will have a "C" column with 0 or 1 in it. > > > > If you're running on one core, it will explain the temperature > > discrepancy. > > I'm almost certain that I'm running on 2 cores. > > My /usr/bin/top says that it's version: > > top: version 3.5beta12 Same as mine!?! I'm running: $ uname -rms FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE amd64 > > It does the a C column with 0 and 1. > > I created a big file full of random data and bzip'd it. > > One copy of the file took 20 seconds. Two copies, two processes ran > in 20 seconds each. Three copies, three processes too 32 seconds. > > Tops tells me that some things are running on CPU0 and others are on > CPU1. > > My config file is a copy of GENERIC and includes 'options SMP'. As > the machine boots it talks about finding both CPUS. > > Here's the config file: > > http://shrimp.alerce.com/bluetoo-info/BLUETOO.txt > > Here's the verbose dmesg: > > http://shrimp.alerce.com/bluetoo-info/dmesg.verbose.txt > > and my rc.conf: > > http://shrimp.alerce.com/bluetoo-info/rc.conf.txt > > and here's top: > > last pid: 1650; load averages: 0.00, 0.04, 0.11 up 0+02:43:22 21:47:06 > 51 processes: 1 running, 50 sleeping > CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle > Mem: 22M Active, 518M Inact, 200M Wired, 214M Buf, 3189M Free > Swap: 4063M Total, 4063M Free > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND > 861 root 1 44 0 5688K 1148K select 1 0:01 0.00% powerd > 1336 hartzell 1 44 0 33756K 4608K select 0 0:00 0.00% sshd > 980 root 1 44 0 73860K 7192K select 1 0:00 0.00% httpd > 854 root 1 44 0 9432K 2284K select 1 0:00 0.00% ntpd > 1338 hartzell 1 20 0 10100K 3060K pause 1 0:00 0.00% tcsh > 921 root 1 8 0 4600K 972K nanslp 1 0:00 0.00% svscan > 1019 root 1 44 0 10696K 3868K select 1 0:00 0.00% sendmail > 900 root 1 44 0 13416K 2772K select 1 0:00 0.00% nmbd > 1104 hartzell 1 5 0 10100K 2752K ttyin 0 0:00 0.00% tcsh > 943 dnscache 1 44 0 5624K 2368K select 1 0:00 0.00% dnscache > 1333 root 1 4 0 33756K 4544K sbwait 1 0:00 0.00% sshd > 733 root 1 44 0 5688K 1368K select 1 0:00 0.00% syslogd > 942 root 1 44 0 6624K 1560K select 1 0:00 0.00% atalkd > 971 avahi 1 44 0 15652K 2580K select 1 0:00 0.00% avahi-daemon > 804 root 1 96 0 4604K 1424K select 0 0:00 0.00% nfsd > 1092 root 1 8 0 20440K 1896K wait 1 0:00 0.00% login > > g. Well, it certainly seems that you're running on 2 cores so that blows that theory out of the water :) My next theory is that cpu0 is reporting too high a figure because it's got a busted or miscalibrated thermistor (or whatever they use). My machine reports cpu core temps of 22 & 24 respectively. That's hovering about room temperature with powerd enabled and a virtually idle machine. For the record, I've got a Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHZ. Another possibility, is that coretemp has a bug in it triggered by your particular CPU. I think the broken temp sensor is more likely though. I don't know if your BIOS records the core temps. If not, it will probably record the CPU temp in which case compare with your coretemp temperatures. That may or may not cast some light on things and whether you have to worry about the machine shutting down due to too high a CPU temperature being erroneously recorded. Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html