From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752680AbZBPSrb (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:47:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750783AbZBPSrW (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:47:22 -0500 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:52831 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750778AbZBPSrV (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:47:21 -0500 From: Thomas Renninger Organization: SUSE Products GmbH To: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: cpuinfo shows wrong MHz value Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:47:19 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.10.3 (Linux/2.6.27.15-SLE11_BRANCH_20090211224354_e2f9ae3b-default; KDE/4.1.3; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200902142217.51655.jplatte@naasa.net> <200902161913.16021.trenn@suse.de> <20090216181936.GA9831@srcf.ucam.org> In-Reply-To: <20090216181936.GA9831@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902161947.19374.trenn@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 16 February 2009 19:19:36 Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 07:13:15PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > On Monday 16 February 2009 17:50:08 Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:19:50PM +0000, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > > > > > > There should be a message when this driver is loaded like: > > > > "This driver is broken. Don't use it, don't complain." > > > > > > Please don't. It's perfectly valid (if dumb) for machines to > > > depend on the CPU for passive cooling even if they don't expose any P > > > or T states. > > No it's not valid. If the BIOS does not export these, it could be for > > a reason. > > We have to deal with insane BIOSes on a regular basis. In this case I will agree with BIOS developers that they have to deal with insane OS implementations... > > > In that case p4-clockmod is the only code that can manage it. The > > > removal of the user-visible cpufreq interface should be a strong > > > enough hint that it's not intended for speed control. > > AFAIK p4-clockmode is still not synchronized with ACPI throttling? > > It ought to work fine with any systems using MSR-based throttling. This may come from the fact that throttling via ACPI would only kick in in emergency temperature case. Exactly then, when throttling should be used, it won't work. I tried it once and I could easily stall the system by throttling via ACPI and p4_clockmod. Thomas