From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3790995355922450950==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Chris Ferron Subject: Re: [Powertop] PowerTOP 2.0 bugs Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:05:20 -0700 Message-ID: <4FB181A0.9020803@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: CABRT9RBEN=Jz6YuSRbVL+kob7Gb_LXPRhLN2pMq5Dm1wbpoR9A@mail.gmail.com To: powertop@lists.01.org List-ID: --===============3790995355922450950== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/11/2012 09:29 AM, Marti Raudsepp wrote: > Hi list, > > I read that PowerTOP 2.0 was released yesterday, so I decided to give > it a run again. First I saw some discrepancy in the CPU usage reported > by PowerTOP. So I ran "while true; do openssl speed aes -multi 4; > done" to utilize all my 4 CPU cores at 100%. htop displays utilization > 4x100% all the time. PowerTOP thinks: Can you please tell me what system, processors and distro (and version) = you are running? Also are you running in a VM by chance? > Summary: 0.2 wakeups/second, 0.0 GPU ops/second, 0.0 VFS ops/sec and > 187.1% CPU use > > Usage Events/s Category Description > 1816 ms/s 0.00 Process openssl speed > aes -multi 4 > > The usage numbers are clearly bogus. Why do you think theyt > Then I remembered that I already reported some bugs about the PowerTOP > 2.0 beta release I tested in January 2011: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote: >> First, I also see an empty "Idle stats" screen, as reported by Ian >> Kumlien earlier. Old PowerTOP didn't report idle state statistics >> either, but at least it had an explanatory message. > "Idle stats page" is still empty: > > Package | CPU 0 > | CPU 1 > | CPU 2 > | CPU 3 > >> Fourth, the "Frequency stats" screen starts up showing good numbers, >> but after the first refresh, all per-core numbers turn bogus. For each >> core, the percentages always add up to 1895% ! > Still occurs, but now the magic constant is always 1961.1% > > Package | CPU 0 > Idle 0.0% | Idle 0.6% > 800 MHz 0.0% | 800 MHz 0.4% > 3.00 GHz 100.0% | 3.00 GHz 1960.1% > 1.80 GHz 0.0% | 2.31 GHz 0.0% > 2.31 GHz 0.0% | > > | CPU 1 > | Idle 2.6% > | 800 MHz 0.3% > | 3.00 GHz 1958.1% > | 2.31 GHz 0.0% > | > > | CPU 2 > | Idle 2.0% > | 800 MHz 0.3% > | 3.00 GHz 1958.8% > | 1.80 GHz 0.0% > | 2.31 GHz 0.0% > > | CPU 3 > | Idle 1.9% > | 800 MHz 0.2% > | 3.00 GHz 1958.7% > | 1.80 GHz 0.3% > | 2.31 GHz 0.0% > > Can anyone remind me why do you do beta releases and why should users > spend their time reporting bugs? Your bug was not ignored, it was not seen before release during our = testing. I have spent three hours testing this bug using your test case above, = and am not seeing the issue. So it may very well be there is an hardware corner case I need to track = down. Which is why I asked the above questions. -Chris > > Regards, > Marti > _______________________________________________ > PowerTop mailing list > PowerTop(a)lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/powertop --===============3790995355922450950==--