From: "Rafał Bilski" <rafalbilski@interia.pl>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: David Johnson <dj@david-web.co.uk>,
cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpufreq longhaul locks up
Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 07:40:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <463C18C4.7030304@interia.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0705050132410.18504@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Jan,
Can You send output of x86info program and output of
lspci command? Longhaul wasn't working for You since 2.6.18 right?
I'm going to work now, but I will be available after 14:00 UTC.
If You have problem with longhaul+powersave there may be one thing
related. When I started to change Longhaul it was causing lockups
on Epia 800. I added transition protection. Helped, but not for
long. After one or two hours machine locked up anyway. I found
datasheet in Google and changed "disable BMDMA bit on PCI device" to
northbridge support. Problem fixed. Somehow CLE133 chipset didn't
like touching "BMDMA master" bits.
Second: I didn't get answer from VIA why they are blocking ACPI C3 on CPU's
faster then 1GHz. I don't know if it is standard practice and if
Intel and AMD are doing it too.
Things worth checking: disable PREEMPT, change it to "Voluntary preemption".
Check if using conservative governor makes any difference. I know that
this may sound strange, but transition latency is directly proportional to
difference between current and destination frequency. Maybe for faster
processors it isn't allowed to change frequency directly from min to max?
Rafa³
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NIE KUPUJ!!!
...zanim nie porownasz cen >> http://link.interia.pl/f1a5e
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Rafał Bilski" <rafalbilski@interia.pl>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: David Johnson <dj@david-web.co.uk>,
cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpufreq longhaul locks up
Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 07:40:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <463C18C4.7030304@interia.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0705050132410.18504@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Jan,
Can You send output of x86info program and output of
lspci command? Longhaul wasn't working for You since 2.6.18 right?
I'm going to work now, but I will be available after 14:00 UTC.
If You have problem with longhaul+powersave there may be one thing
related. When I started to change Longhaul it was causing lockups
on Epia 800. I added transition protection. Helped, but not for
long. After one or two hours machine locked up anyway. I found
datasheet in Google and changed "disable BMDMA bit on PCI device" to
northbridge support. Problem fixed. Somehow CLE133 chipset didn't
like touching "BMDMA master" bits.
Second: I didn't get answer from VIA why they are blocking ACPI C3 on CPU's
faster then 1GHz. I don't know if it is standard practice and if
Intel and AMD are doing it too.
Things worth checking: disable PREEMPT, change it to "Voluntary preemption".
Check if using conservative governor makes any difference. I know that
this may sound strange, but transition latency is directly proportional to
difference between current and destination frequency. Maybe for faster
processors it isn't allowed to change frequency directly from min to max?
Rafał
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NIE KUPUJ!!!
...zanim nie porownasz cen >> http://link.interia.pl/f1a5e
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-05 5:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-04 10:16 cpufreq longhaul locks up Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 11:36 ` Wander Winkelhorst
2007-05-04 11:51 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 11:51 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 17:08 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-04 17:08 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-04 17:42 ` Chuck Ebbert
2007-05-04 17:42 ` Chuck Ebbert
2007-05-04 18:40 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-04 18:08 ` Wander Winkelhorst
2007-05-04 19:00 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-04 19:00 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-04 18:48 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 18:48 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 20:11 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-04 20:11 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-04 21:03 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 21:03 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 20:37 ` john stultz
2007-05-04 21:02 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 22:49 ` john stultz
2007-05-04 23:32 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 4:03 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 8:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 8:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 13:58 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 13:58 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 18:13 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 18:13 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 22:20 ` David Johnson
2007-05-04 22:20 ` David Johnson
2007-05-04 23:37 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 23:37 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 5:40 ` Rafał Bilski [this message]
2007-05-05 5:40 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 8:44 ` Wander Winkelhorst
2007-05-05 14:02 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 14:02 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 17:48 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 17:48 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 18:42 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 18:42 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 19:58 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 19:58 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 20:30 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 20:30 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 20:50 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 20:50 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 21:32 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-06 7:53 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-06 7:53 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-06 5:12 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-06 5:12 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-06 8:03 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-06 8:03 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-06 9:23 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-06 9:23 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-06 9:32 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-06 10:25 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-06 10:25 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-06 11:33 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-06 12:20 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 9:37 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 9:37 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 14:10 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 14:10 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 17:38 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 17:38 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 18:04 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 18:04 ` Rafał Bilski
2007-05-05 18:23 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 18:23 ` Jan Engelhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=463C18C4.7030304@interia.pl \
--to=rafalbilski@interia.pl \
--cc=cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk \
--cc=dj@david-web.co.uk \
--cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.