Re: Where are the N900 too much time at 600Mhz safeguards?
Javier S. Pedro wrote: When I got my N900, one of the first things I noticed is that (as measured by powertop) I could never get a 100% ratio at 600 Mhz, but more like 95%. I quickly assumed this was the safeguard for the issue Igor Stoppa talked about at the Maemo Summit. See also http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=499042#post499042 I wrote it before noticing this thread but the numbers quoted from OMAP35XX datasheet may be still interesting. Frantisek ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Where are the N900 too much time at 600Mhz safeguards?
When I got my N900, one of the first things I noticed is that (as measured by powertop) I could never get a 100% ratio at 600 Mhz, but more like 95%. I quickly assumed this was the safeguard for the issue Igor Stoppa talked about at the Maemo Summit. However, I've noticed today (as suggested by a tmo post) that the above is not caused by any special modification in the kernel, but rather because of the CPU idling while waiting for the SGX / some other hw (so, testing methodology failure on my part :) ). Thus, given any task bounded by raw CPU throughput, the device will happily clock itself at 600Mhz, even for hours. Doesn't that contradict what Igor said at the summit? -- Javier ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
Re: Where are the N900 too much time at 600Mhz safeguards?
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Javier S. Pedro wrote: When I got my N900, one of the first things I noticed is that (as measured by powertop) I could never get a 100% ratio at 600 Mhz, but more like 95%. I quickly assumed this was the safeguard for the issue Igor Stoppa talked about at the Maemo Summit. However, I've noticed today (as suggested by a tmo post) that the above is not caused by any special modification in the kernel, but rather because of the CPU idling while waiting for the SGX / some other hw (so, testing methodology failure on my part :) ). Thus, given any task bounded by raw CPU throughput, the device will happily clock itself at 600Mhz, even for hours. Doesn't that contradict what Igor said at the summit? At least for 30 minutes, there appear to be no 'safeguards': N900:~# date ; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/time_in_state ; for i in ` seq 1 1000` ; do bzip2 -c9 /lib/libc-2.5.so /dev/null ; done ; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/time_in_state ; date Wed Jan 27 15:35:32 IST 2010 60 43683 55 487 50 17132 25 1164197 60 254442 55 487 50 17132 25 1164200 Wed Jan 27 16:10:39 IST 2010 This represents more than 99.99% of 35 minutes at 600MHz. Note that I ran this test with no SIM, screen off, not charging and wifi connected, but with practically no traffic. The device got only slightly warm, but it was hardly noticeable, so I guess that the power draw of the CPU, even at 600MHz does not have a large effect the system. BTW, is there a temperature sensor somewhere in the system like there is in the N810? -- Matan Ziv-Av. ma...@svgalib.org ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
RE: Where are the N900 too much time at 600Mhz safeguards?
Hi, whereis the contraddiction? I wouldn't consider 95% to be so little :-D But the idea is that, if you have a task that is CPU bound, you are getting some bang for your bucks, it's not done pointlessly. Anyway, unless you are planning to do s...@n900 or something similar, it is unlikely you will keep your device in that state indefinitely, which is what i was warning against. Cheers, Igor From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org] On Behalf Of ext Javier S. Pedro [ma...@javispedro.com] Sent: 28 January 2010 00:43 To: maemo-developers@maemo.org Subject: Where are the N900 too much time at 600Mhz safeguards? When I got my N900, one of the first things I noticed is that (as measured by powertop) I could never get a 100% ratio at 600 Mhz, but more like 95%. I quickly assumed this was the safeguard for the issue Igor Stoppa talked about at the Maemo Summit. However, I've noticed today (as suggested by a tmo post) that the above is not caused by any special modification in the kernel, but rather because of the CPU idling while waiting for the SGX / some other hw (so, testing methodology failure on my part :) ). Thus, given any task bounded by raw CPU throughput, the device will happily clock itself at 600Mhz, even for hours. Doesn't that contradict what Igor said at the summit? -- Javier ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
RE: Where are the N900 too much time at 600Mhz safeguards?
Hi, the damage is not directly related to the temperature, but rather to the overvoltage used @600MHz. There are few temperature sensors, but not all of them are accessible to the normal SW and most are just thermal shutdown safeguards. But the battery, for example, has a temperature sensor nearby. However please notice that usually their readings are meaningless apart from indicating the _local_ temperature, since there are so many heat sources on the board. Finally, being the device basically plastic, not perceiving high temperature at surface level is not so relevant, since plastic is not such a good thermal conductor and allows for higher and longer power peaks. Phones with metallic casing have lower max temperature allowed at surface level because of the higher transfer efficiency (the delta being 15C, on top of my head). Cheers, Igor From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org] On Behalf Of ext Matan Ziv-Av [ma...@svgalib.org] Sent: 28 January 2010 01:25 To: Javier S. Pedro Cc: maemo-developers@maemo.org Subject: Re: Where are the N900 too much time at 600Mhz safeguards? On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Javier S. Pedro wrote: When I got my N900, one of the first things I noticed is that (as measured by powertop) I could never get a 100% ratio at 600 Mhz, but more like 95%. I quickly assumed this was the safeguard for the issue Igor Stoppa talked about at the Maemo Summit. However, I've noticed today (as suggested by a tmo post) that the above is not caused by any special modification in the kernel, but rather because of the CPU idling while waiting for the SGX / some other hw (so, testing methodology failure on my part :) ). Thus, given any task bounded by raw CPU throughput, the device will happily clock itself at 600Mhz, even for hours. Doesn't that contradict what Igor said at the summit? At least for 30 minutes, there appear to be no 'safeguards': N900:~# date ; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/time_in_state ; for i in ` seq 1 1000` ; do bzip2 -c9 /lib/libc-2.5.so /dev/null ; done ; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/time_in_state ; date Wed Jan 27 15:35:32 IST 2010 60 43683 55 487 50 17132 25 1164197 60 254442 55 487 50 17132 25 1164200 Wed Jan 27 16:10:39 IST 2010 This represents more than 99.99% of 35 minutes at 600MHz. Note that I ran this test with no SIM, screen off, not charging and wifi connected, but with practically no traffic. The device got only slightly warm, but it was hardly noticeable, so I guess that the power draw of the CPU, even at 600MHz does not have a large effect the system. BTW, is there a temperature sensor somewhere in the system like there is in the N810? -- Matan Ziv-Av. ma...@svgalib.org ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers ___ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
