From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wouter Verhelst Subject: Re: p4-clockmod doesn't seem to allow the highest possible speed Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:56:19 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040111195619.GA25048@grep.be> References: <20040109181851.GA1393@grep.be> <20040110101534.GA10003@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040110110800.GA8294@grep.be> <20040110131824.GA5010@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040110152145.GA10160@grep.be> <20040110154110.GA8735@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040110163212.GD10531@grep.be> <20040110185308.GZ14031@poupinou.org> <20040110193526.GM10531@grep.be> <20040111173547.GB5485@dominikbrodowski.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040111173547.GB5485@dominikbrodowski.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ducrot Bruno , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:35:47PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:35:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > That happens both when it's in P0 or P1. > > So ACPI works to set the processor in P0 and P1? Yes. > If so, you really really should use the ACPI cpufreq driver instead of > the p4-clockmod driver. The former will offer you true "SpeedStep" > support, the latter only some clock modulation which won't save you > much energy as ACPI supports the C2 idle state anyway. Ah, so what p4-clockmod does is not SpeedStep? Hm. That sucks. > > Not that it matters -- p4-clockmod seems to do it right :) > > It's not as noisy, indeed. But it's not right -- as long as acpi.ko works. It mostly does, although I've had lockups when using the /proc interface to switch CPU frequencies -- yes, should've reported that, but I only now remember :) > > > I think ACPI is messing with us. It detects a high temperature > > > situation, tries to scale down the CPU, and forces down the CPU speed. > > > > Hm. This one got me thinking; I think I just found it. I forgot that I > > installed cpufreqd a while ago, which seems to be the culprit: when I > > start cpufreqd, the system falls back to 1925Mhz. I've removed it now, > > however, as killing cpufreqd does not release the maximum speed back to > > it's normal value of 2.2Ghz, I'm not entirely sure; so... > > > > > Could you send me the output of /proc/acpi/processor/*/* and > > > /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/*/* when you notice this situation again? > > > > ... I've still put those at > > http://users.pandora.be/wouter.verhelst/proc-acpi.tgz > > Hm, can't recognize anything strange there. When the situation appears > again, what does /sys/devices/sytem/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq say? That does not change. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.