Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org
Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker Resp. Description o kern/181665 acpi [acpi] System will not go into S3 state. o kern/180897 acpi [acpi] ACPI error with MB p8h67 v.1405 o kern/174766 acpi [acpi] Random acpi panic o kern/174504 acpi [ACPI] Suspend/resume broken on Lenovo x220 o kern/173408 acpi [acpi] [regression] ACPI Regression: battery does not o kern/171305 acpi [acpi] acpi_tz0: _CRT value is absurd, ignored (256.0C o kern/165381 acpi [cpufreq] powerd(8) eats CPUs for breakfast o kern/164329 acpi [acpi] hw.acpi.thermal.tz0.temperature shows strange v o kern/162859 acpi [acpi] ACPI battery/acline monitoring partialy working o kern/161715 acpi [acpi] Dell E6520 doesn't resume after ACPI suspend o kern/161713 acpi [acpi] Suspend on Dell E6520 o kern/160838 acpi [acpi] ACPI Battery Monitor Non-Functional o kern/160419 acpi [acpi_thermal] acpi_thermal kernel thread high CPU usa o kern/158689 acpi [acpi] value of sysctl hw.acpi.thermal.polling_rate ne o kern/154955 acpi [acpi] Keyboard or ACPI doesn't work on Lenovo S10-3 o kern/152098 acpi [acpi] Lenovo T61p does not resume o i386/146715 acpi [acpi] Suspend works, resume not on a HP Probook 4510s o kern/145306 acpi [acpi]: Can't change brightness on HP ProBook 4510s o i386/143798 acpi [acpi] shutdown problem with SiS K7S5A o kern/143420 acpi [acpi] ACPI issues with Toshiba o kern/142009 acpi [acpi] [panic] Panic in AcpiNsGetAttachedObject o kern/139088 acpi [acpi] ACPI Exception: AE_AML_INFINITE_LOOP error o amd64/138210 acpi [acpi] acer aspire 5536 ACPI problems (S3, brightness, o i386/136008 acpi [acpi] Dell Vostro 1310 will not shutdown (Requires us o kern/132602 acpi [acpi] ACPI Problem with Intel SS4200: System does not a i386/122887 acpi [panic] [atkbdc] 7.0-RELEASE on IBM HS20 panics immed s kern/112544 acpi [acpi] [patch] Add High Precision Event Timer Driver f o kern/73823 acpi [request] acpi / power-on by timer support 28 problems total. ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon E5 cpu work in low status
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:46 AM, 李森 lisen1...@gmail.com wrote: hi,all: the cpu of my machine is : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2643 0 @ 3.30GHz. after a reboot. The cpu freq is : sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq dev.cpu.0.freq: 1200 i didn't set any power savings config in rc.conf. How can i fix this? It's not clear what is broken. Is the server busy? Is there some reason to expect it to be running at full clock-rate? What is the content of dev.cpu.0.freq_levels? By default, FreeBSD runs powerd and that will, by default, throttle back the clock when the system is not busy. I think that this is a bad thing., but it is not a bug. It's by design. I really think, based on my own testing, research and a major NSF computer center (SDSC), and work done by mav@ which can be found on the FreeBSD wiki ( https://wiki.freebsd.org/TuningPowerConsumption), those power management tools are broken by design a they are actually there for thermal control, not power management and are, at best, break-even, and in most cases are actually a loser in both power savings and system performance. (There are a very few edge cases where they can be beneficial, but as a side effect for very specific loads under fairly unusual circumstances.) To turn off these (mis)features, add the following to /boot/loader.conf: # Disable CPU throttling hint.p4tcc.0.disabled=1 hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled=1 rant All real power management is through the use of EST and CPU sleep (CX) states. These can provide a big power win at minimal performance impact. Unfortunately CX states and throttling lay very badly together, probably because processor designers don't think that TCC and throttling are for power management, so are not an issue. For reasons that have always baffled me, rather than disable the inappropriate use of thermal management as power management, we disable the most effective power management tools by default. performance_cx_lowest=HIGH # Online CPU idle state economy_cx_lowest=HIGH # Offline CPU idle state Even the comments are confusing: what do Online and Offline mean? Offline means running on battery and online means AC power. In any case, it's not clear that there is any issue with your system other than that, by default, FreeBSD tries to really, really hard to manage power as badly as humanly possible. /rant -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon E5 cpu work in low status
.. and what I'd really like to see is some tools to inspect power consumption on the CPU side of things. I'd also like something for the GPU side of things too. I can't find anything in our DRM driver code that twiddles the clock PLL registers to slow things down. Thanks, -adrian On 4 November 2013 10:00, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote: A lot of us think this. The question is .. who's going to fix it? :-) -adrian On 4 November 2013 09:52, Kevin Oberman rkober...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:46 AM, 李森 lisen1...@gmail.com wrote: hi,all: the cpu of my machine is : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2643 0 @ 3.30GHz. after a reboot. The cpu freq is : sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq dev.cpu.0.freq: 1200 i didn't set any power savings config in rc.conf. How can i fix this? It's not clear what is broken. Is the server busy? Is there some reason to expect it to be running at full clock-rate? What is the content of dev.cpu.0.freq_levels? By default, FreeBSD runs powerd and that will, by default, throttle back the clock when the system is not busy. I think that this is a bad thing., but it is not a bug. It's by design. I really think, based on my own testing, research and a major NSF computer center (SDSC), and work done by mav@ which can be found on the FreeBSD wiki ( https://wiki.freebsd.org/TuningPowerConsumption), those power management tools are broken by design a they are actually there for thermal control, not power management and are, at best, break-even, and in most cases are actually a loser in both power savings and system performance. (There are a very few edge cases where they can be beneficial, but as a side effect for very specific loads under fairly unusual circumstances.) To turn off these (mis)features, add the following to /boot/loader.conf: # Disable CPU throttling hint.p4tcc.0.disabled=1 hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled=1 rant All real power management is through the use of EST and CPU sleep (CX) states. These can provide a big power win at minimal performance impact. Unfortunately CX states and throttling lay very badly together, probably because processor designers don't think that TCC and throttling are for power management, so are not an issue. For reasons that have always baffled me, rather than disable the inappropriate use of thermal management as power management, we disable the most effective power management tools by default. performance_cx_lowest=HIGH # Online CPU idle state economy_cx_lowest=HIGH # Offline CPU idle state Even the comments are confusing: what do Online and Offline mean? Offline means running on battery and online means AC power. In any case, it's not clear that there is any issue with your system other than that, by default, FreeBSD tries to really, really hard to manage power as badly as humanly possible. /rant -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon E5 cpu work in low status
On Monday, November 04, 2013 12:52:53 pm Kevin Oberman wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:46 AM, 李森 lisen1...@gmail.com wrote: hi,all: the cpu of my machine is : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2643 0 @ 3.30GHz. after a reboot. The cpu freq is : sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq dev.cpu.0.freq: 1200 i didn't set any power savings config in rc.conf. How can i fix this? It's not clear what is broken. Is the server busy? Is there some reason to expect it to be running at full clock-rate? What is the content of dev.cpu.0.freq_levels? By default, FreeBSD runs powerd and that will, by default, throttle back the clock when the system is not busy. I think that this is a bad thing., but it is not a bug. It's by design. I really think, based on my own testing, research and a major NSF computer center (SDSC), and work done by mav@ which can be found on the FreeBSD wiki ( https://wiki.freebsd.org/TuningPowerConsumption), those power management tools are broken by design a they are actually there for thermal control, not power management and are, at best, break-even, and in most cases are actually a loser in both power savings and system performance. (There are a very few edge cases where they can be beneficial, but as a side effect for very specific loads under fairly unusual circumstances.) To turn off these (mis)features, add the following to /boot/loader.conf: # Disable CPU throttling hint.p4tcc.0.disabled=1 hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled=1 rant All real power management is through the use of EST and CPU sleep (CX) states. These can provide a big power win at minimal performance impact. Unfortunately CX states and throttling lay very badly together, probably because processor designers don't think that TCC and throttling are for power management, so are not an issue. For reasons that have always baffled me, rather than disable the inappropriate use of thermal management as power management, we disable the most effective power management tools by default. performance_cx_lowest=HIGH # Online CPU idle state economy_cx_lowest=HIGH # Offline CPU idle state Even the comments are confusing: what do Online and Offline mean? Offline means running on battery and online means AC power. In any case, it's not clear that there is any issue with your system other than that, by default, FreeBSD tries to really, really hard to manage power as badly as humanly possible. /rant The only thing is that powerd is not enabled by default, so it shouldn't be set to 1200 out of the box. I think there have been a few laptops historically that would startup at a lower clock speed (EST) when booted on battery, but I've never heard of that for servers. In terms of thermal throttling vs EST: ideally powerd would only ever use EST, and the throttling would be driven by acpi_thermal. Most systems don't have the _TC1/_TC2 methods acpi_thermal needs (I think I've only seen it on older laptops), so that would effectively disable TCC on modern systems. This requires tearing cpufreq apart a bit. It's also not clear what we should display to the user. The simplest approach would be to only export absolute frequencies in freq_levels and the current absolute frequency as freq. That would allow powerd to not need any changes. You could use a different sysctl node that is throttling percent or some such. If throttling kicked in on a system with TC1/TC2 then 'freq' wouldn't change when the CPU was throttled, only the throttling percent. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon E5 cpu work in low status
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:53:03PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: On Monday, November 04, 2013 12:52:53 pm Kevin Oberman wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:46 AM, ?? lisen1...@gmail.com wrote: hi,all: the cpu of my machine is : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2643 0 @ 3.30GHz. after a reboot. The cpu freq is : sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq dev.cpu.0.freq: 1200 i didn't set any power savings config in rc.conf. How can i fix this? It's not clear what is broken. Is the server busy? Is there some reason to expect it to be running at full clock-rate? What is the content of dev.cpu.0.freq_levels? By default, FreeBSD runs powerd and that will, by default, throttle back the clock when the system is not busy. I think that this is a bad thing., but it is not a bug. It's by design. I really think, based on my own testing, research and a major NSF computer center (SDSC), and work done by mav@ which can be found on the FreeBSD wiki ( https://wiki.freebsd.org/TuningPowerConsumption), those power management tools are broken by design a they are actually there for thermal control, not power management and are, at best, break-even, and in most cases are actually a loser in both power savings and system performance. (There are a very few edge cases where they can be beneficial, but as a side effect for very specific loads under fairly unusual circumstances.) To turn off these (mis)features, add the following to /boot/loader.conf: # Disable CPU throttling hint.p4tcc.0.disabled=1 hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled=1 rant All real power management is through the use of EST and CPU sleep (CX) states. These can provide a big power win at minimal performance impact. Unfortunately CX states and throttling lay very badly together, probably because processor designers don't think that TCC and throttling are for power management, so are not an issue. For reasons that have always baffled me, rather than disable the inappropriate use of thermal management as power management, we disable the most effective power management tools by default. performance_cx_lowest=HIGH # Online CPU idle state economy_cx_lowest=HIGH # Offline CPU idle state Even the comments are confusing: what do Online and Offline mean? Offline means running on battery and online means AC power. In any case, it's not clear that there is any issue with your system other than that, by default, FreeBSD tries to really, really hard to manage power as badly as humanly possible. /rant The only thing is that powerd is not enabled by default, so it shouldn't be set to 1200 out of the box. I think there have been a few laptops historically that would startup at a lower clock speed (EST) when booted on battery, but I've never heard of that for servers. In terms of thermal throttling vs EST: ideally powerd would only ever use EST, and the throttling would be driven by acpi_thermal. Most systems don't have the _TC1/_TC2 methods acpi_thermal needs (I think I've only seen it on older laptops), so that would effectively disable TCC on modern systems. This requires tearing cpufreq apart a bit. It's also not clear what we should display to the user. The simplest approach would be to only export absolute frequencies in freq_levels and the current absolute frequency as freq. That would allow powerd to not need any changes. You could use a different sysctl node that is throttling percent or some such. If throttling kicked in on a system with TC1/TC2 then 'freq' wouldn't change when the CPU was throttled, only the throttling percent. My Intel board DQ67OW starts with the fixed CPU speed, which is configurable in BIOS. Unless OS starts managing the frequency with the cpufreq and powerd, CPU is locked to the pre-configured speed. It was not easy to understand why my single-user memory b/w benchmarks show half of the expected throughput for the cache, until I found the setting and found that Intel defaults to 1/2 of the marketing frequency. For my board, it is Performance-Processor Overrides-Maximum Non-Turbo Ratio. It was set to 17, normal CPU mode is 34, turbo is 38 max. pgpNMnZAGj7Zf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Xeon E5 cpu work in low status
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Adrian Chadd wrote: On 4 November 2013 14:24, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote: My Intel board DQ67OW starts with the fixed CPU speed, which is configurable in BIOS. Unless OS starts managing the frequency with the cpufreq and powerd, CPU is locked to the pre-configured speed. It was not easy to understand why my single-user memory b/w benchmarks show half of the expected throughput for the cache, until I found the setting and found that Intel defaults to 1/2 of the marketing frequency. For my board, it is Performance-Processor Overrides-Maximum Non-Turbo Ratio. It was set to 17, normal CPU mode is 34, turbo is 38 max. Does powerd throttle each individual core like this? I don't have anything laptop-y that's recent enough for that to matter. Unless something's changed recently I've missed, no. My 9 box is still broken, so ref to 8.2 sources .. start with /sys/kern/kern_cpu.c, cpufreq(4) and results of find /sys/ -name *freq*. Nate Lawson commented way back: /* * Only initialize one set of sysctls for all CPUs. In the future, * if multiple CPUs can have different settings, we can move these * sysctls to be under every CPU instead of just the first one. */ I recall that some CPUs had potential for individual settings (voltage, freq) but some only per-package rather than per-core, and then there's the thermal control settings as well. I believe Kevin's right, p4tcc and acpi_throttle should be disabled by default, on most CPUs anyway, and that at least is just a simple change to hints, as a start. It's quite a deep rabbit warren, and most docs are only in the code - eg still? no mans for most if not all of the absolute and relative cpufreq drivers mentioned in cpufreq(4), as I recall - and of course the moving targets with newer CPUs .. so have fun down there! cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon E5 cpu work in low status
Thanks for all the responses. my machine is ibm bladecenter hs23 server. As Konstantin Belousov said, i check my server BIOS, change the processor performacne from Favor Performace to Max Performance It seems ok now. ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
