Hi!
Thanks to Srinivas, bug tracking moved to bugzilla at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=187311 , it is regression
from v4.8-final.
Easiest way to observe it is that cpufreq/bios_limit does not change
in v4.9, where it goes lower with high temperature on v4.8.
Best regards,
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sat 2016-11-05 15:46:12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hmm, thanks for the pointer. But it seems like I'll have to build my
> > > own, as /proc/acpi/ibm does not follow the usual infrastructure...
Hi!
BTW.. This machine has nasty habit of hanging during kernel boot when
it is "hot".. which makes reboots unplesant here. Ideas would be
welcome how to debug that.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.co
On Sat 2016-11-05 16:04:58, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > [ 825.759661] thinkpad_acpi: THERMAL EMERGENCY: a sensor reports something
> > is extremely hot!
> > [ 825.761935] thinkpad_acpi: temperatures (Celsius): 101 49 N/A 78 33 N/A
> > 33 N/A
On Sat 2016-11-05 15:46:12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hmm, thanks for the pointer. But it seems like I'll have to build my
> > own, as /proc/acpi/ibm does not follow the usual infrastructure...
>
> /proc/acpi/ibm has been deprecated for years
Hi!
On Sat 2016-11-05 16:21:21, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2016, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 04-11-16, 10:26, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > How would I know if it is thermal capping? There's nothing in dmesg.
> >
> > I am not sure what code is responsible for doing that in cas
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 04-11-16, 10:26, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > How would I know if it is thermal capping? There's nothing in dmesg.
>
> I am not sure what code is responsible for doing that in case of x86, maybe
> Rafael and Rui can explain it that better.
>
> But surely i
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, Pavel Machek wrote:
> [ 825.759661] thinkpad_acpi: THERMAL EMERGENCY: a sensor reports something
> is extremely hot!
> [ 825.761935] thinkpad_acpi: temperatures (Celsius): 101 49 N/A 78 33 N/A 33
> N/A 47 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Oh boy, that must be the second time in a
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hmm, thanks for the pointer. But it seems like I'll have to build my
> own, as /proc/acpi/ibm does not follow the usual infrastructure...
/proc/acpi/ibm has been deprecated for years. 99% of the functionality
is available through more modern, standard in
Hi!
> > > Yes, this seems to work. scaling_max goes to 1.5, then 1.1. Also
> > > under
> > > load, scaling_max_freq changes. But at that point, we are already
> > > around 98C... and bios_limit stays the same all the time in v4.9.
> >
> > ...while in v4.8-rc1, bios limit goes to 1.0 GHz at 90C, a
Hi!
> > > > So we seem to have thermal or ACPI regression in v4.9-rc3.
> > > >
> > > It is possible. Can you add either add printk
> > > in acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed() or use ftrace and see do you
> > > get to
> > > these functions
> > >
> > > acpi_processor_ppc_init()
> > > acpi_processor_
On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 15:04 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sat 2016-11-05 14:53:13, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, can do, let me recompile and reboot.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When temperature limit is
> > > > > reached acpi_processor_ppc_notifie
On Sat 2016-11-05 14:53:13, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > Ok, can do, let me recompile and reboot.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > When temperature limit is reached acpi_processor_ppc_notifier()
> > > > should
> > > > be called.
> > >
> > > No, that's not correct for ACPI passive trip points, is it?
On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 14:37 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > So we seem to have thermal or ACPI regression in v4.9-rc3.
> > >
> > It is possible. Can you add either add printk
> > in acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed() or use ftrace and see do you
> > get to
> > th
Hi!
> > Ok, can do, let me recompile and reboot.
> >
> > >
> > > When temperature limit is reached acpi_processor_ppc_notifier()
> > > should
> > > be called.
> >
> > No, that's not correct for ACPI passive trip points, is it? If I
> > recall correctly, those should be monitored even when tempe
On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 14:20 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2016-11-04 23:20:53, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 23:16 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > So we seem to have thermal or ACPI regression in v4.9-rc3.
> > >
On Fri 2016-11-04 23:20:53, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 23:16 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > So we seem to have thermal or ACPI regression in v4.9-rc3.
> >
> It is possible. Can you add either add printk
> in acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed() or us
Hi!
> > So we seem to have thermal or ACPI regression in v4.9-rc3.
> >
> To me, there are two problems,
> the first one is a 4.9-rc regression that BIOS limit stops working,
> results in overheating because of high cpu frequency. I agree with
> Srinivas to check acpi_cpufreq driver code for this
Hi!
> Under v4.8-rc, behaviour is different: bios_limit goes to 1GHz there
> when temperature is around 84C at the thermal zone. That keeps
> ibm/thermal temperatures under 90C, and no "thermal emergency"
> messages in syslog.
Argh. So v4.9 thermal management does not work.
v4.8 passive thermal
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 23:16 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >
> > I'd prefer mails over bugzilla for now...
> >
> > 4.9-rc2 has bios_limit:
> >
> > pavel@duo:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/bios_limit
> > 1833000
> >
> > and it has thermal zones:
> >
> > /sys/devices/virtual/
Hi!
> > 4.9-rc2 has bios_limit:
> >
> > pavel@duo:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/bios_limit
> > 1833000
> >
> > and it has thermal zones:
> >
> > /sys/devices/virtual/thermal/thermal_zone0/trip_point_0_temp 127000
> > /sys/devices/virtual/thermal/thermal_zone0/trip_point_0_type cri
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 23:16 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
[...]
> So we seem to have thermal or ACPI regression in v4.9-rc3.
>
It is possible. Can you add either add printk
in acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed() or use ftrace and see do you get to
these functions
acpi_processor_ppc_init()
ac
Hi!
> I'd prefer mails over bugzilla for now...
>
> 4.9-rc2 has bios_limit:
>
> pavel@duo:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/bios_limit
> 1833000
>
> and it has thermal zones:
>
> /sys/devices/virtual/thermal/thermal_zone0/trip_point_0_temp 127000
> /sys/devices/virtual/thermal/therma
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 21:44 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >
> > >
> > > Let me try v4.9-rc2... that works ok (cpus at the high frequency
> > > during the kernel build). Unfortunately that sends my cpus to 99C
> > > temperature range (and eventually forces emergency shutdown).
> >
> > Thi
Hi!
> > Let me try v4.9-rc2... that works ok (cpus at the high frequency
> > during the kernel build). Unfortunately that sends my cpus to 99C
> > temperature range (and eventually forces emergency shutdown).
>
> This we have to debug. Do you see same line like
> "
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 09:58 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2016-11-04 09:38:49, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> >
[...]
> > What is worse, they go to low frequency even with "performance"
> governor on v4.8-rc1?!
>
> pavel@duo:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq$ sudo cat
> /sys/devices/system
On 04-11-16, 10:26, Pavel Machek wrote:
> How would I know if it is thermal capping? There's nothing in dmesg.
I am not sure what code is responsible for doing that in case of x86, maybe
Rafael and Rui can explain it that better.
But surely it involves userspace in this case as scaling_max_freq i
Hi!
> I am really confused about where the problem is. 4.8 or 4.9 ? :)
Well, v4.8 runs at too low frequency without explanation, and v4.9
overheats. Both are a problem :-). But it starts to look like v4.9 is
the one where the real problem is.
> On 04-11-16, 09:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Fri
Hi Pavel,
I am really confused about where the problem is. 4.8 or 4.9 ? :)
On 04-11-16, 09:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2016-11-04 09:38:49, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm debugging overheats on v4.9-rc1... which did not seem to happen in
> > v4.8-rc1. I'm running basically "nice ma
On Fri 2016-11-04 09:38:49, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm debugging overheats on v4.9-rc1... which did not seem to happen in
> v4.8-rc1. I'm running basically "nice make -j 3" on kernel... cpus are
> fully loaded.
>
> %Cpu(s): 7.5 us, 18.5 sy, 72.6 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 1.5
> si,
Hi!
I'm debugging overheats on v4.9-rc1... which did not seem to happen in
v4.8-rc1. I'm running basically "nice make -j 3" on kernel... cpus are
fully loaded.
%Cpu(s): 7.5 us, 18.5 sy, 72.6 ni, 0.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 1.5
si, 0.0 st
KiB Mem: 3087096 total, 2993076 used,94020 free,
31 matches
Mail list logo
