Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:13:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Wes Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org> To: freebsd_user@guice.ath.cx Cc: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TECRA A9-S9017 -- Idles too hot -- Hardware Support Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808311900080.52681@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet> In-Reply-To: <20080831223722.GC2191@WORKSTATION.guice.ath.cx> References: <489E9531.2090200@guice.ath.cx> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808100707270.6781@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet> <20080825025833.GB3301@WORKSTATION.guice.ath.cx> <20080826002657.B14827@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <20080825191804.GA6846@WORKSTATION.guice.ath.cx> <20080826182124.O14827@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <20080830210736.GA4521@WORKSTATION.guice.ath.cx> <20080831223722.GC2191@WORKSTATION.guice.ath.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, freebsd_user@guice.ath.cx wrote: > In addition to the above URL, other findings: > > hw.acpi.toshiba.cpu_speed=7 > hw.acpi.toshiba.force_fan=1 > hw.acpi.thermal.min_runtime=30 > hw.acpi.thermal.polling_rate: 10 > hw.acpi.thermal.user_override=1 > hw.acpi.thermal.tz0.temperature: 61.0C # On 6.3-RELEASE -p3 - > # this value is bogus > > hw.acpi.thermal.tz0.active: -1 # Can not change > hw.acpi.thermal.tz0.passive_cooling: 0 # Can not change > hw.acpi.thermal.tz0.thermal_flags: 0 > hw.acpi.thermal.tz0._PSV=10.0C # passive_cooling will- > # activate @ this temp. > # Above, passive_cooling > # currently N/A. Have you tried 7.0 instead of 6.3? I can't think of any compelling reason to stick with 6.x on a laptop. > With that being said, please allow me this one (1) rhetorical > question; how is a common end-user supposed to keep his machine > running and maintain her/his sanity chasing after issues such as > we've discussed here? When dealing with a piece of hardware that was designed from the ground up with only Microsoft Windows XP or even Vista in mind, I would say that we're doing pretty well. That the two frequencies for each core disagree, could be simply rounding difference or the core may actually report differently, as you may notice that your true frequency is not 2200mhz. The ACPI temperature may be measured in a different location than the "coretemp". On my system there is not even a sysctl for the frequency of the second core. I imagine that setting each core to a different frequency could be advantageous if the scheduler was able to take advantage of this, but I wonder if some applications might be adversely effected. I would try installing 7-stable and rerunning the tests, perhaps posting the results with slightly less verbosity as each message is becoming inordinately long and cluttered with too much information.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.1.10.0808311900080.52681>