Re: Coretemp seems to be off quite a bit

2008-10-07 Thread Frank Shute
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:39:40AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:

 I have a Gigabyte motherboard with an Intel ICH-9 chipset, and a  
 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo (E8400).  The coretemp sysctls seem to always show  
 50C as the baseline temperature:
 
 $ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
 dev.cpu.0.temperature: 50
 dev.cpu.1.temperature: 50
 
 This is with a big PSU fan, a good CPU fan, a clean heatsink, and two  
 case fans aimed the right direction (front fan pulling cool air in,  
 rear fan pushing warm air out).  If I reboot and go into the BIOS, I  
 get numbers around 42-43C.  I know it's kind of hard to compare  
 directly, but the coretemp numbers are from a totally idle system with  
 powerd scaling it back to 373MHz, so it should be as cool as when  
 sitting idle in the BIOS screens.  When I work the system hard, like  
 running make -j4 buildworld, I see temperatures up around 63-64C,  
 and I'm almost positive that's not right.
 
 Any ideas why coretemp and the BIOS would show such different numbers?

To add some numbers, I've got an E6550 on a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L
(ICH9) and I get:

$ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
dev.cpu.0.temperature: 24
dev.cpu.1.temperature: 28

Ambient room temp: 23°C

That's running powerd and the machine idle, standard heatsink/fan
combo, 1x12cm case fan.

Your's might run hotter (higher clock speed? Mine: 2.33GHz) but I
wouldn't expect it to run *so* much hotter.

I'd expect your numbers to be right if all the ACPI stuff is working.
To confirm this, check in Windows, if you can:

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/

Tom's hardware has some stuff about Intel temps:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/221745-11-core-quad-temperature-guide

If that is high too and is outside the proper temperature envelope for
your CPU, that leaves a possibility that your heatsink/fan might not
be seated properly.

What we could do with is some numbers from somebody running a similar
CPU.

Regards,

-- 

 Frank 


 Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Coretemp seems to be off quite a bit

2008-10-07 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:25:17PM +0100, Frank Shute wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:39:40AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
 
  I have a Gigabyte motherboard with an Intel ICH-9 chipset, and a  
  3.0GHz Core 2 Duo (E8400).  The coretemp sysctls seem to always show  
  50C as the baseline temperature:
  
  $ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
  dev.cpu.0.temperature: 50
  dev.cpu.1.temperature: 50
  
  This is with a big PSU fan, a good CPU fan, a clean heatsink, and two  
  case fans aimed the right direction (front fan pulling cool air in,  
  rear fan pushing warm air out).  If I reboot and go into the BIOS, I  
  get numbers around 42-43C.  I know it's kind of hard to compare  
  directly, but the coretemp numbers are from a totally idle system with  
  powerd scaling it back to 373MHz, so it should be as cool as when  
  sitting idle in the BIOS screens.  When I work the system hard, like  
  running make -j4 buildworld, I see temperatures up around 63-64C,  
  and I'm almost positive that's not right.
  
  Any ideas why coretemp and the BIOS would show such different numbers?
 
 To add some numbers, I've got an E6550 on a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L
 (ICH9) and I get:
 
 $ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
 dev.cpu.0.temperature: 24
 dev.cpu.1.temperature: 28
 
 Ambient room temp: 23°C
 
 That's running powerd and the machine idle, standard heatsink/fan
 combo, 1x12cm case fan.
 
 Your's might run hotter (higher clock speed? Mine: 2.33GHz) but I
 wouldn't expect it to run *so* much hotter.
 
 I'd expect your numbers to be right if all the ACPI stuff is working.

Clarification here is needed:

coretemp(4) has nothing to do with ACPI.  It gets thermal statistics
from the processor by talking *directly* to the processor with specific
opcodes, the results returned in specific CPU registers.  It does not
rely on ACPI.

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking   http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator  Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.  PGP: 4BD6C0CB |

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Coretemp seems to be off quite a bit

2008-10-07 Thread Frank Shute
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 06:28:32AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:25:17PM +0100, Frank Shute wrote:
  On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:39:40AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
  
   I have a Gigabyte motherboard with an Intel ICH-9 chipset, and a  
   3.0GHz Core 2 Duo (E8400).  The coretemp sysctls seem to always show  
   50C as the baseline temperature:
   
   $ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
   dev.cpu.0.temperature: 50
   dev.cpu.1.temperature: 50
   
   This is with a big PSU fan, a good CPU fan, a clean heatsink, and two  
   case fans aimed the right direction (front fan pulling cool air in,  
   rear fan pushing warm air out).  If I reboot and go into the BIOS, I  
   get numbers around 42-43C.  I know it's kind of hard to compare  
   directly, but the coretemp numbers are from a totally idle system with  
   powerd scaling it back to 373MHz, so it should be as cool as when  
   sitting idle in the BIOS screens.  When I work the system hard, like  
   running make -j4 buildworld, I see temperatures up around 63-64C,  
   and I'm almost positive that's not right.
   
   Any ideas why coretemp and the BIOS would show such different numbers?
  
  To add some numbers, I've got an E6550 on a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L
  (ICH9) and I get:
  
  $ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
  dev.cpu.0.temperature: 24
  dev.cpu.1.temperature: 28
  
  Ambient room temp: 23°C
  
  That's running powerd and the machine idle, standard heatsink/fan
  combo, 1x12cm case fan.
  
  Your's might run hotter (higher clock speed? Mine: 2.33GHz) but I
  wouldn't expect it to run *so* much hotter.
  
  I'd expect your numbers to be right if all the ACPI stuff is working.
 
 Clarification here is needed:
 
 coretemp(4) has nothing to do with ACPI.  It gets thermal statistics
 from the processor by talking *directly* to the processor with specific
 opcodes, the results returned in specific CPU registers.  It does not
 rely on ACPI.

Thanks for the clarification.

What I meant was that the core temperatures are dependent on clock
speed which is dependent on powerd which is dependent on ACPI, if I'm
not mistaken.

i.e: If powerd isn't working properly due to ACPI bugs then you may
have your CPU running at full clock, hence high temps. No?

So one possible scenario is that powerd isn't working, although Kirk
implies that it is.

One piece of evidence that powerd is not working properly is that it
clocked the CPU back to 373MHz - which seems an odd-looking number to
me.

On my machine:

$ sysctl dev.cpu | grep freq
dev.cpu.0.freq: 250
dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 2333/22464 2041/19656 2000/22464 1750/19656 1500/16848 
1250/14040 1000/11232 750/8424 500/5616 250/2808

i.e: I've got 2 odd steps high up but the rest are divisible by 50.

I don't know if Kirk has fiddled with powerd. I just installed it 
started it.

Even if he used a percentage, it still seems a weird number - unless I
missed something in powerd(4).

Regards,

-- 

 Frank 


 Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Coretemp seems to be off quite a bit

2008-10-07 Thread Kirk Strauser

On Oct 7, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Frank Shute wrote:


$ sysctl dev.cpu | grep freq
dev.cpu.0.freq: 250
dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 2333/22464 2041/19656 2000/22464 1750/19656  
1500/16848 1250/14040 1000/11232 750/8424 500/5616 250/2808


For some reason, versions of FreeBSD after 7.0-RELEASE think I have an  
odd-MHz CPU:


$ sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq_levels
dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 2984/-1 2611/-1 2238/-1 1865/-1 1492/-1 1119/-1  
746/-1 373/-1



I don't know if Kirk has fiddled with powerd. I just installed it 
started it.


That's all I did.  I put 'powerd_enable=YES' in /etc/rc.conf and  
started it.

--
Kirk Strauser



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Coretemp seems to be off quite a bit

2008-10-07 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 06:33:15PM +0100, Frank Shute wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 06:28:32AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
 
  On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:25:17PM +0100, Frank Shute wrote:
   On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:39:40AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
   
I have a Gigabyte motherboard with an Intel ICH-9 chipset, and a  
3.0GHz Core 2 Duo (E8400).  The coretemp sysctls seem to always show  
50C as the baseline temperature:

$ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
dev.cpu.0.temperature: 50
dev.cpu.1.temperature: 50

This is with a big PSU fan, a good CPU fan, a clean heatsink, and two  
case fans aimed the right direction (front fan pulling cool air in,  
rear fan pushing warm air out).  If I reboot and go into the BIOS, I  
get numbers around 42-43C.  I know it's kind of hard to compare  
directly, but the coretemp numbers are from a totally idle system with  
powerd scaling it back to 373MHz, so it should be as cool as when  
sitting idle in the BIOS screens.  When I work the system hard, like  
running make -j4 buildworld, I see temperatures up around 63-64C,  
and I'm almost positive that's not right.

Any ideas why coretemp and the BIOS would show such different numbers?
   
   To add some numbers, I've got an E6550 on a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L
   (ICH9) and I get:
   
   $ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
   dev.cpu.0.temperature: 24
   dev.cpu.1.temperature: 28
   
   Ambient room temp: 23°C
   
   That's running powerd and the machine idle, standard heatsink/fan
   combo, 1x12cm case fan.
   
   Your's might run hotter (higher clock speed? Mine: 2.33GHz) but I
   wouldn't expect it to run *so* much hotter.
   
   I'd expect your numbers to be right if all the ACPI stuff is working.
  
  Clarification here is needed:
  
  coretemp(4) has nothing to do with ACPI.  It gets thermal statistics
  from the processor by talking *directly* to the processor with specific
  opcodes, the results returned in specific CPU registers.  It does not
  rely on ACPI.
 
 Thanks for the clarification.
 
 What I meant was that the core temperatures are dependent on clock
 speed which is dependent on powerd which is dependent on ACPI, if I'm
 not mistaken.

I believe powerd(8) is reliant upon cpufreq(4), which is reliant upon
many different pieces (depending upon what you've enabled in your kernel
and what you've configured in loader.conf).  See the cpufreq(4) man page
for details of all the drivers/methods supported -- and yep, ACPI-based
throttling is indeed there.

 i.e: If powerd isn't working properly due to ACPI bugs then you may
 have your CPU running at full clock, hence high temps. No?

Processors/hardware are not dependent upon operating systems calming
them down or telling them to idle.  I forget if I mentioned use of
HLT opcodes and what not on idling processors -- this is just an added
bonus, as HLT will often put the processor into a deeper sleep than
it would if it was just sitting there doing nothing.  That's why you
might see some occasional Windows programs advertising cool your CPU
down by running this program!!!

Let's say his average idle temperature is 40C.  If he does not use
powerd(8), his processor temperature should probably be 40C, maybe up or
down a degree.  If he starts doing something CPU-intensive, that will
obviously increase the temperature.  But when the processor isn't doing
anything, it shouldn't have a high temperature.

Keep in mind that powerd(8) using frequency or clock throttling does not
necessarily guarantee lower/colder temperatures.  It all depends on what
cpufreq(4) module is being relied upon, and what sorts of power saving
states the CPU has in it.  In the case of Core 2 Duos, there's 4 or 5
states (C1 through C5 I believe), and I've read that there's a couple
different severities of some of those states.  RMClock for Windows
does an awful good job of showing you what all the states are, and you
can enable/disable them (as power-down states available) simply by
clicking check boxes.

 So one possible scenario is that powerd isn't working, although Kirk
 implies that it is.
 
 One piece of evidence that powerd is not working properly is that it
 clocked the CPU back to 373MHz - which seems an odd-looking number to
 me.

It doesn't appear odd to me.  It greatly depends on what processor model
you have, what cpufreq(4) driver you're using, what CPU features you
have turned on or off (BIOSes sometimes can set these for you), what
your FreeBSD settings are (loader.conf specifically), and what
motherboard you're using.

Case in point: here's some from a PDSMi+ board, although I'm using
debug.cpufreq.lowest=1191 in loader.conf (I don't care to have the
system downclock beyond that):

dev.cpu.0.freq: 1191
dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 2382/-1 2084/-1 1786/-1 1488/-1 1191/-1

It would help if we could see some of his sysctl date, specifically
these:

debug.cpufreq.*
dev.cpufreq.[0-9].*
dev.cpu.[0-9].freq
dev.cpu.[0-9].freq_levels

Re: Coretemp seems to be off quite a bit

2008-10-07 Thread Kirk Strauser

On Oct 7, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:


It would help if we could see some of his sysctl date, specifically
these:

debug.cpufreq.*
dev.cpufreq.[0-9].*
dev.cpu.[0-9].freq
dev.cpu.[0-9].freq_levels


$ sysctl debug.cpufreq
debug.cpufreq.verbose: 0
debug.cpufreq.lowest: 0

$ sysctl dev.cpufreq.0
dev.cpufreq.0.%driver: cpufreq
dev.cpufreq.0.%parent: cpu0

$ sysctl dev.cpufreq.1
dev.cpufreq.1.%driver: cpufreq
dev.cpufreq.1.%parent: cpu1

$ sysctl dev.cpu | grep freq
dev.cpu.0.freq: 2984
dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 2984/-1 2611/-1 2238/-1 1865/-1 1492/-1 1119/-1  
746/-1 373/-1



For all we know, it could be the heatsink/fan is not properly mounted,
or there's too much thermal paste.  Who knows.


I remounted the heatsink (side note: curse you, Intel - was that meant  
to be funny?), and didn't apply a single bit of paste other than what  
came on it.  I don't have the ability to boot Windows on this system,  
or at least not without some pain (it's a server with no extra drive  
space I could readily set aside to install it, for starters).


Since fiddling with the heatsink, the temperature was down to 45C at  
boot.  I did another make -j4 buildworld and it got up to 58C.   
Since killing that build, it's slowly working its way back into the  
high 40s (currently bouncing between 48 and 49).


--
Kirk Strauser



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Coretemp seems to be off quite a bit

2008-10-07 Thread Walt Pawley
On Oct 7, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
...
I remounted the heatsink (side note: curse you, Intel - was that meant
to be funny?), and didn't apply a single bit of paste other than what
came on it.

FWIW: one needs to be careful with the application of heat sink
paste if one doesn't want to do more harm than good. A very
many years ago, when I was young enough to be a practicing
engineer, National Semiconductor published some notes about
various component to heat sink mounting methodologies. There
were two results that stood out. First, using too much heat
sink compound is worse than using nothing at all. The reason is
that metal to metal is quite good and the proper application of
of compound should only just fill the voids where the two
flat surfaces don't touch. Second, metal to metal is quite
good - as evidenced by a very large jump in heat conductivity
when the component was surface soldered to the heat sink.
-- 

Walter M. Pawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wump Research  Company
676 River Bend Road, Roseburg, OR 97471
 541-672-8975
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Coretemp seems to be off quite a bit

2008-10-06 Thread Kirk Strauser
I have a Gigabyte motherboard with an Intel ICH-9 chipset, and a  
3.0GHz Core 2 Duo (E8400).  The coretemp sysctls seem to always show  
50C as the baseline temperature:


$ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
dev.cpu.0.temperature: 50
dev.cpu.1.temperature: 50

This is with a big PSU fan, a good CPU fan, a clean heatsink, and two  
case fans aimed the right direction (front fan pulling cool air in,  
rear fan pushing warm air out).  If I reboot and go into the BIOS, I  
get numbers around 42-43C.  I know it's kind of hard to compare  
directly, but the coretemp numbers are from a totally idle system with  
powerd scaling it back to 373MHz, so it should be as cool as when  
sitting idle in the BIOS screens.  When I work the system hard, like  
running make -j4 buildworld, I see temperatures up around 63-64C,  
and I'm almost positive that's not right.


Any ideas why coretemp and the BIOS would show such different numbers?
--
Kirk Strauser

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Coretemp seems to be off quite a bit

2008-10-06 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:39:40AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
 I have a Gigabyte motherboard with an Intel ICH-9 chipset, and a 3.0GHz 
 Core 2 Duo (E8400).  The coretemp sysctls seem to always show 50C as the 
 baseline temperature:

 $ sysctl dev.cpu | grep temp
 dev.cpu.0.temperature: 50
 dev.cpu.1.temperature: 50

 This is with a big PSU fan, a good CPU fan, a clean heatsink, and two  
 case fans aimed the right direction (front fan pulling cool air in, rear 
 fan pushing warm air out).  If I reboot and go into the BIOS, I get 
 numbers around 42-43C.

First and foremost: there is always the possibility of a bug in
coretemp(4).  I'm not dissuading that possibility, but let's talk about
the other aspects first.

There is a common misconception that what the BIOS reports is the on-die
CPU temperature.  This is often not the case.  In 90% of the
motherboards out there, the temperatures shown in the BIOS are taken
from external sensors: that is to say, a thermistor on the motherboard
intended for monitoring system temperature.  This is very different from
the on-die processor core temperatures that coretemp(4) shows.

You didn't state what exact model of Gigabyte motherboard you're using,
nor did you state what BIOS version, so I can't help here.  But all
of these boards come with 1) the ability to monitor voltages, 2) the
ability to monitor fan RPMs, and 2) the ability to monitor temperatures.
All of these requires an external H/W monitoring IC, which *is not*
the same thing coretemp(4) reports.

Secondly, if the BIOS does in fact report on-die core temperatures,
then there is a certain amount of differential which should be allowed.
That's often 4-5C, believe it or not.  The BIOS has a tendency to run
hotter, because it does not do things such as execute HLT instructions
on idle processors and so on, like FreeBSD, Linux, and Windows do.

Thirdly, there is a known issue with on-die temperature reporting.  On
my E6550, the Windows program called RMClock reports my cores at
something like 56C each, yet CoreTemp (which uses the same data) reports
them at 36C.  While on my Q9550, all cores are reported properly in both
CoreTemp and RMClock (about 30-36C per core; the variance between cores
is normal).

The 20C difference seen on my E6550 between RMClock and CoreTemp has to
do with something called TJunction, or at least that's what I'm told
by the RMClock author.  You can Google for that term and see exactly
what I'm talking about.  Different software authors implement the
calculation formula differently.

http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/howitworks.html

Finally, there's also something called TjunctionMax, which is the
temperature point where if any of the cores reach, will result in the
processor literally shutting off.  CoreTemp also shows this.  I believe
it's set to 85C on my E6550, while 100C on my Q9550.  God forbid the
temperatures ever reach that.

 I know it's kind of hard to compare directly, but the coretemp numbers
 are from a totally idle system with powerd scaling it back to 373MHz,
 so it should be as cool as when sitting idle in the BIOS screens.
 When I work the system hard, like running make -j4 buildworld, I see
 temperatures up around 63-64C, and I'm almost positive that's not
 right.

If at all possible, boot Windows and run CoreTemp.  If the numbers shown
there are identical to what FreeBSD shows (give or take a couple
degrees), then they are correct.  If Windows is not an option, surely
Linux has something that can show core temperatures.

Be aware that the stock retail heatsink/fan on Intel CPUs is known to be
*horrible* at cooling, and after a few months of use will become noisy
as hell.

If you're using your own heatsink/fan, I highly recommend you consider
removing it and reseating it.  The temperatures you're reporting, in or
out of the BIOS, are what I consider high.  I used to see ~36-37C
on my E6550 per core when idling, and ~43-44C under load.  On my Q9550 I
see ~30-36C on idle, and 40-42C on load.

 Any ideas why coretemp and the BIOS would show such different numbers?

See above.

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking   http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator  Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.  PGP: 4BD6C0CB |

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]