Hi all. I'm currently running HEAD from about June 14. My system has been having what appear to be temperature related issues (those are not the point of this e-mail).
As part of attempting to deal with (or diagnose) what is happening there, I switched the CPU frequency to go slower (slower CPU, less heat). I was expecting a minor temperature reduction. Instead, when I did (initially sysctl -w machdep.cpu.frequency.target=2500 (reducing from the apparent max, 3401) the temps dropped (almost instantly) from upper 30's (C) to low 40's, down to the high teens or very low 20's. That's in a room with room temperature in the low 20's at the time. I switched the target (and actual reported running frequency) to 3400 (just leaving off the "turbo boost" "1") which made no difference. Today (still using 3400 as the frequency) I have seen reported CPU temperatures as low as 8 degrees C (in a room with ambient temps that never would have dropped below 20 - with the A/C running fairly hard). Since I don't believe my motherboard, processor, or cooler, have refrigeration capabilities, that's somewhat remarkable. I have just turned "turbo boost" back on (freq 3401) and the temp readings now are more normal, upper 20's (nicely above the ambient air temp, as one would normally expect) to mid 30's, with occasional excursions into the low 50's when a core gets temporarily busy. Has anyone else seen anything like this? Details of the CPU are appended - at least the basic model info from "cpuctl idenify 0", if knowing the (huge) set of feature bit settings would be useful (or some particular ones) I can supply those later. And while I am here, I currently see only the CPU core temps in envstat, but the BIOS can see much more. I suspect one of these "not configured" is the culprit. [ 1.025183] Intel 600 Series PCH-H I2C 0 (miscellaneous serial bus, revision 0x11) at pci0 dev 21 function 0 not configured [ 1.025183] Intel 600 Series PCH-H SPI (FLASH) (miscellaneous serial bus, revision 0x11) at pci0 dev 31 function 5 not configured Those might be being "not configured" either because NetBSD currently doesn't support them, or perhaps more likely, something is missing from my custom kernel config. If it is the latter, and anyone knows what I should be including, I'd appreciate a hint! There's a bunch of other stuff not configured (including the WiFi, which I know we do not currently support) but I doubt that any of that is related to missing sensor devices (the BIOS can see fan speeds, motherboard temp, (and voltages, but those might be done differently). Thanks, kre jacaranda# cpuctl identify 0 cpu0: highest basic info 00000020 cpu0: highest extended info 80000008 cpu0: "12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-12900KS" cpu0: Intel 12th gen Core (Alder Lake) (686-class), 3417.60 MHz cpu0: CPU base freq 3400000000 Hz cpu0: CPU max freq 5500000000 Hz cpu0: TSC freq CPUID 3417600000 Hz cpu0: family 0x6 model 0x97 stepping 0x2 (id 0x90672) [....] cpu0: SEF highest subleaf 00000001 cpu0: SEF-subleaf1-eax 0x401c10<AVXVNNI,FZLRMS,FSRSB,FSRCS,HRESET> cpu0: Power Management features: 0x100<ITSC> cpu0: Perfmon-eax 0x8300805<VERSION=0x5,GPCounter=0x8,GPBitwidth=0x30> cpu0: Perfmon-eax 0x8300805<Vectorlen=0x8> cpu0: Perfmon-edx 0x8604<FixedFunc=0x4,FFBitwidth=0x30,ANYTHREADDEPR> cpu0: Hybrid: Core type 40, Native Model ID 0000001 cpu0: microcode version 0x16, platform ID 1 (That's running its supplied microdode - I disabled the microcode updates, as the issue I'm seeing appeared soon after the most recent microcode update was installed. But clearly that was irrelevant, as not doing the update has made no difference, so I will be enabling that again soon). I am also currently running with hyperthreading disabled (which seems to have been a change that is keeping my system running OK) - the 8 "economy" cores have also been disabled (but not by me) - the processor, or BIOS, does that sometimes (and always has) - they will return after a full power off (as in, removing power from the power supply - nothing less works). Having those disabled has not made any difference to the original problem (though enabling them might have made it worse - but that was from a single experiment under non-controlled circumstances, so really means nothing.)
