> > though NetBSD's cpu selection algorithm doesn't (yet anyway) really
> > understand processors like this.
>
> The scheduler did use first cores first, with performance cores
> using low cpu numbers, they should be utilized first but not
> necessarily for the important workloads.
>
> It now
Sorry, no, I can't test, the system looks to have died, and certainly
needs repairs, it looks as if the cooler might be dead (not sure about
the cpu at the minute, it won't even boot to the stage where the BIOS
enables the display)
However, much of what your patch does (according to your
Hi, all.
Could you test the following diff?
http://www.netbsd.org/~msaitoh/coretemp-20230707-0.dif
In the draft of the commit message:
--
coretemp(4): Change limits of Tjmax.
- Change the lower limit from 70 to 60. At least, some BIOSes can change
the value down
k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>So my current guess (and it is no more than that) would be that if
>powerd happens to notice that happening, which would require it to
>look at just the right time, then powerd does a system shutdown.
>If powerd doesn't notice quickly enough, the CPU (or
Date:Sun, 2 Jul 2023 11:43:35 +0200
From:Michael van Elst
Message-ID:
| Yes. That bit also triggers powerd.
So my current guess (and it is no more than that) would be that if
powerd happens to notice that happening, which would require it to
look at just the
On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 04:16:51PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> if ((msr & MSR_THERM_STATUS_CRIT_STA) != 0)
> edata->state = ENVSYS_SCRITICAL;
>
> that is, rather than reaching some configured limit, simply being told
> by the cpu that the status is critical ?
Yes. That
Date:Sun, 2 Jul 2023 08:11:59 - (UTC)
From:mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
Message-ID:
| In the end that means the chip either won't reach it's maximum turbo
| speed, or only for a shorter time, or only when cooled better. The
| value that corresponds
k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
> | You can probably avoid this, if you limit the chip to performance of the
> | non-selected die (in real applications it will probably lose 1-5%). The
> | BIOS should have a setting for the cTDP value that you can play with.
>If I am understanding
Date:Sat, 1 Jul 2023 13:18:50 - (UTC)
From:mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
Message-ID:
| To support the "turbo" speeds, you need higher voltages and it is plausible
| that the voltages need to be set for the worst case because switching the
| clock to
k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>I have been running that kernel now for approaching 18 hours. At boot
>time (when coretemp is being attached) Tjmax was read as 115 (on all cores,
>I don't know if that's supposed to be a per-core value, or not, but that
>doesn't matter), and nothing I
Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2023 20:18:31 +0200
From:Michael van Elst
Message-ID:
| Unless there is a BIAS on those numbers and the real values are maybe 15
| degrees higher.
That's exactly what they were. I added some extra debug code to
coretemp.c, to tell me what was
Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2023 20:18:31 +0200
From:Michael van Elst
Message-ID:
| Unless there is a BIAS on those numbers and the real values are maybe 15
| degrees higher.
Probably 20. That would be more realistic.
| I can also easily imagine that temperatures
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:59:18PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> When I set 3400, which is what I have right now, if that dropped to low 30's,
> or high 20's, or just stayed the same while idling as your processor does,
> then that would all make sense. But it doesn't. I am running at 3400 now,
Another reply to multiple messages in one, but starting from the last
one this time, as it is the most important I think.
Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:52:03 +0200
From:Michael van Elst
Message-ID:
| One possibility would be that the 3401 mode didn't enable turbo
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 06:01:28PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> It is, and I'm aware of it. I'm not sure why Michael wanted to know
> whether the speed was actually being altered or not,
One possibility would be that the 3401 mode didn't enable turbo frequencies
but actually throttled the CPU
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:03:33PM +0200, Rhialto wrote:
> On Thu 29 Jun 2023 at 16:50:27 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> > And then for fun, at 3401 ... this one I needed to run the test several
> > times until the kernel picked one of the fastest processors to run it on
>
> When I was muddling with
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 04:50:27PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> It looks to me as if the frequency adjustments are working properly,
Then it gets really strange what the temperature sensor would see.
One possibility would be that the Tjmax value is actually changed
dynamically (maybe some SMM
Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:03:33 +0200
From:Rhialto
Message-ID:
| In your cpu this may be the case too, which would give confusing results
| if you're not aware of the possibility.
It is, and I'm aware of it. I'm not sure why Michael wanted to know
whether the
On Thu 29 Jun 2023 at 16:50:27 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> And then for fun, at 3401 ... this one I needed to run the test several
> times until the kernel picked one of the fastest processors to run it on
When I was muddling with estd to dynamically slow down my cpus when not
in use, I was told
Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:27:05 - (UTC)
From:mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
Message-ID:
| You could run a benchmark like 'openssl speed sha256' and compare
| the 3400 MHz target and the target and step lower.
First, my userland (that I run most of the
k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
> | When this happens, is the machine actually running at 3400 MHz?
>How do I tell?
You could run a benchmark like 'openssl speed sha256' and compare
the 3400 MHz target and the target and step lower.
> | >The motherboard is an AsRock Z690 Taichi.
> |
Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2023 05:39:23 - (UTC)
From:mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
Message-ID:
| When this happens, is the machine actually running at 3400 MHz?
How do I tell? But if you mean what does machdep.cpu.frequency.current
report, then yes, that is
k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>When the
>cpu frequency target is changed to 3400, all the core temp values drop
>to lower than room air temp (which according to my probably inaccurate
>desk lamp, is currently 22.5, the coretemp values are all in the 15-18
>range at the minute).
When
Date:Wed, 28 Jun 2023 23:46:24 + (UTC)
From:RVP
Message-ID:
| You can set a lower "critical-max" property on the CPU temps. in
| /etc/envsys.conf to make powerd trigger a shutdown at a lower temperature.
| Say, 75C?
Yex, I know, but at the minute I am not
Date:Wed, 28 Jun 2023 15:08:17 +0900
From:Masanobu SAITOH
Message-ID: <1b1763d8-f565-612c-9336-9fb71d496...@execsw.org>
| Please test the following diff:
| https://www.netbsd.org/~msaitoh/coretemp-20230628-0.dif
Done that, doesn't seem to make any
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023, Robert Elz wrote:
The second issue (the one I started investigating) is that (with the
cpu freq at 3401, enabling turbo mode, and I assume, actual frequencies
up to 5500MHz) the temperatures recorded start creeping upwards (when
the system is mostly idle, and nothing is
I am going to reply to several messages in one reply...
But first, thanks for looking at this at all, x86 processors
have always been black magic to me.
Date:Wed, 28 Jun 2023 05:06:11 - (UTC)
From:mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
Message-ID:
| coretemp
Hi.
On 2023/06/28 14:24, Michael van Elst wrote:
> k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>
>> cpu0: "12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-12900KS"
>
> The chip apparently reports a Tjmax of 100 C (as for the non-selected chip)
> but actually has a real Tjmax of 115 C.
k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>cpu0: "12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-12900KS"
The chip apparently reports a Tjmax of 100 C (as for the non-selected chip)
but actually has a real Tjmax of 115 C.
There are two caveats:
Our driver ignores Tjmax of > 110 C (and uses 100 C as default). If
k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>sysctl -w machdep.cpu.frequency.target=3D2500
>(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.
coretemp temperatures in that range are unlikely to be
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
