Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:41:46 -0800 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: cpufreq import complete, acpi_throttling changed Message-ID: <20050214164146.7BB8B5D07@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:33:27 PST." <420FE3C7.6020003@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:33:27 -0800 > From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> > > Kevin Oberman wrote: > >>Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:21:32 -0800 > >>From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> > >>Sender: owner-freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org > >> > >> > >>If you have throttling, please test the new configuration to be sure it > >>still works as before. Final upcoming work will be manpage support and > >>bugfixing as necessary. > > > > > > On my T30, throttling has simply vanished. Kernel sources as of this > > afternoon at about 11:00 PST. > > > > sysctl hw.acpi does not list any throttling entries at all. > > It shouldn't, they were merged into the sysctl dev.cpu output as you > mention below. > > > It does list an amazing number of frequency settings, but only 1800 and > > 1200 seem to actually work. Perhaps the others are derived by mixing the > > two capabilities? On the earlier versions of cpufreq I was getting only > > the two frequencies listed along with the 8 throttling states. > > > > Did I miss a message on this? > > Try cvsupping to now. I did some commits about an hour or two ago that > should address throttling not attaching. > > > I am especially concerned because my CPU is now running VERY hot when > > busy. It never used to exceed about 180F and now it quickly jumps to > > 190+ when the system is working (such as a buildkernel). Since it was > > previously running without throttling, I don't understand why things are > > suddenly worse. > > > > Any idea on what is happening? I don't want to fry my T30. > > One person reported Cx states being broken by the cpufreq import. > (Well, actually he got a C3 state that he didn't have before but it > didn't work.) Try setting hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest to C1 or something > you're sure works. > > Send me the output of sysctl dev.cpu, dmesg, and devinfo -rv. Things are better now, and it was not really an ACPI issue. For about the millionth time I remind myself: Only change one thing at a time! At the same time that I started running cpufreq and acpi_perf, I also switched from 4BSD to ULE. This is why the system started running so much hotter! Throttling is now working correctly and I can keep my CPU at about 175(F) degrees or a kernel build by lowering the "frequency" from 1800 to 1350. My dmesg shows ACPI throttling setting up fine: cpu0: <ACPI CPU (3 Cx states)> on acpi0 acpi_perf0: <ACPI CPU Frequency Control> on cpu0 acpi_throttle0: <ACPI CPU Throttling> on cpu0 I guess all I have really done is demonstrate that ULE is much more efficient than 4BSD. Thanks for the quick response and sorry for the false alarm. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050214164146.7BB8B5D07>