Linux-PM Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
* 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
@ 2019-06-09 11:17 Pavel Machek
  2019-06-09 11:23 ` Pavel Machek
  2019-06-12  2:37 ` Doug Smythies
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2019-06-09 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kernel list, linux-acpi, rui.zhang, rjw, viresh.kumar, linux-pm,
	tglx, mingo, bp, hpa, x86

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1179 bytes --]

Hi!

When I start flightgear, I get framerates around 20 fps and cpu at
3GHz:

pavel@duo:~/bt$ cat /proc/cpuinfo  | grep MHz
cpu MHz		    : 3027.471
cpu MHz		      : 2981.863
cpu MHz		      	: 2958.352
cpu MHz			  : 2864.001
pavel@duo:~/bt$

(Ok, fgfs is really only running at single core, so why do both cores
run at 3GHz?)

But temperatures get quite high:

pavel@duo:~/bt$ sensors
thinkpad-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
fan1:        4485 RPM

coretemp-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
Package id 0:  +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 0:        +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 1:        +91.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)

And soon cpu goes to 1.5GHz range, with framerates going down to
12fps. That's a bit low.

Room temperature is 26Celsius.

The CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz . I guess it means
it should be able to sustain both cores running at 2.5GHz?

Any ideas? Were there any recent changes in that area?

Best regards,
							Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-09 11:17 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related? Pavel Machek
@ 2019-06-09 11:23 ` Pavel Machek
  2019-06-09 12:12   ` Pavel Machek
  2019-06-12  2:37 ` Doug Smythies
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2019-06-09 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kernel list, linux-acpi, rui.zhang, rjw, viresh.kumar, linux-pm,
	tglx, mingo, bp, hpa, x86

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1467 bytes --]

Hi!

> When I start flightgear, I get framerates around 20 fps and cpu at
> 3GHz:
> 
> pavel@duo:~/bt$ cat /proc/cpuinfo  | grep MHz
> cpu MHz		    : 3027.471
> cpu MHz		      : 2981.863
> cpu MHz		      	: 2958.352
> cpu MHz			  : 2864.001
> pavel@duo:~/bt$
> 
> (Ok, fgfs is really only running at single core, so why do both cores
> run at 3GHz?)
> 
> But temperatures get quite high:
> 
> pavel@duo:~/bt$ sensors
> thinkpad-isa-0000
> Adapter: ISA adapter
> fan1:        4485 RPM
> 
> coretemp-isa-0000
> Adapter: ISA adapter
> Package id 0:  +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
> Core 0:        +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
> Core 1:        +91.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
> 
> And soon cpu goes to 1.5GHz range, with framerates going down to
> 12fps. That's a bit low.
> 
> Room temperature is 26Celsius.
> 
> The CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz . I guess it means
> it should be able to sustain both cores running at 2.5GHz?
> 
> Any ideas? Were there any recent changes in that area?

I tried kernel compile. It keeps both cores at 3GHz, temperature goes
up over 95C, and then cpus start going down to 2.3GHz... and then down
to 2GHz... and down to 1.9GHz.

watch bash -c 'sensors;  cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz'
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-09 11:23 ` Pavel Machek
@ 2019-06-09 12:12   ` Pavel Machek
  2019-06-09 13:55     ` Daniel Lezcano
  2019-06-09 14:13     ` Zhang Rui
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2019-06-09 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kernel list, linux-acpi, rui.zhang, rjw, viresh.kumar, linux-pm,
	tglx, mingo, bp, hpa, x86

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1962 bytes --]

Hi!

> > When I start flightgear, I get framerates around 20 fps and cpu at
> > 3GHz:
> > 
> > pavel@duo:~/bt$ cat /proc/cpuinfo  | grep MHz
> > cpu MHz		    : 3027.471
> > cpu MHz		      : 2981.863
> > cpu MHz		      	: 2958.352
> > cpu MHz			  : 2864.001
> > pavel@duo:~/bt$
> > 
> > (Ok, fgfs is really only running at single core, so why do both cores
> > run at 3GHz?)
> > 
> > But temperatures get quite high:
> > 
> > pavel@duo:~/bt$ sensors
> > thinkpad-isa-0000
> > Adapter: ISA adapter
> > fan1:        4485 RPM
> > 
> > coretemp-isa-0000
> > Adapter: ISA adapter
> > Package id 0:  +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
> > Core 0:        +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
> > Core 1:        +91.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
> > 
> > And soon cpu goes to 1.5GHz range, with framerates going down to
> > 12fps. That's a bit low.
> > 
> > Room temperature is 26Celsius.
> > 
> > The CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz . I guess it means
> > it should be able to sustain both cores running at 2.5GHz?
> > 
> > Any ideas? Were there any recent changes in that area?
> 
> I tried kernel compile. It keeps both cores at 3GHz, temperature goes
> up over 95C, and then cpus start going down to 2.3GHz... and then down
> to 2GHz... and down to 1.9GHz.
> 
> watch bash -c 'sensors;  cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz'

Situation is very different with v4.6 distro based kernel.

CPU MHz is only getting values round to 100MHz. It does not go above
2.5GHz, but it does not go below 2.5GHz under the load, either.

ACPI adapter appears in sensors output.

Now I tried going to 5.2-rc4. It behaves the same as 5.2-rc2. Goes up
to 3GHz briefly but then down to 2.0GHz and below under load.

Ideas welcome.

Best regards,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-09 12:12   ` Pavel Machek
@ 2019-06-09 13:55     ` Daniel Lezcano
  2019-06-09 14:13     ` Zhang Rui
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2019-06-09 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek, kernel list, linux-acpi, rui.zhang, rjw,
	viresh.kumar, linux-pm, tglx, mingo, bp, hpa, x86

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2167 bytes --]

On 09/06/2019 14:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>>> When I start flightgear, I get framerates around 20 fps and cpu at
>>> 3GHz:
>>>
>>> pavel@duo:~/bt$ cat /proc/cpuinfo  | grep MHz
>>> cpu MHz		    : 3027.471
>>> cpu MHz		      : 2981.863
>>> cpu MHz		      	: 2958.352
>>> cpu MHz			  : 2864.001
>>> pavel@duo:~/bt$
>>>
>>> (Ok, fgfs is really only running at single core, so why do both cores
>>> run at 3GHz?)
>>>
>>> But temperatures get quite high:
>>>
>>> pavel@duo:~/bt$ sensors
>>> thinkpad-isa-0000
>>> Adapter: ISA adapter
>>> fan1:        4485 RPM
>>>
>>> coretemp-isa-0000
>>> Adapter: ISA adapter
>>> Package id 0:  +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
>>> Core 0:        +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
>>> Core 1:        +91.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
>>>
>>> And soon cpu goes to 1.5GHz range, with framerates going down to
>>> 12fps. That's a bit low.
>>>
>>> Room temperature is 26Celsius.
>>>
>>> The CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz . I guess it means
>>> it should be able to sustain both cores running at 2.5GHz?
>>>
>>> Any ideas? Were there any recent changes in that area?
>>
>> I tried kernel compile. It keeps both cores at 3GHz, temperature goes
>> up over 95C, and then cpus start going down to 2.3GHz... and then down
>> to 2GHz... and down to 1.9GHz.
>>
>> watch bash -c 'sensors;  cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz'
> 
> Situation is very different with v4.6 distro based kernel.
> 
> CPU MHz is only getting values round to 100MHz. It does not go above
> 2.5GHz, but it does not go below 2.5GHz under the load, either.
> 
> ACPI adapter appears in sensors output.
> 
> Now I tried going to 5.2-rc4. It behaves the same as 5.2-rc2. Goes up
> to 3GHz briefly but then down to 2.0GHz and below under load.
> 
> Ideas welcome.

What is the cpufreq governor for v4.6 and v5.2-rc4?



-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-09 12:12   ` Pavel Machek
  2019-06-09 13:55     ` Daniel Lezcano
@ 2019-06-09 14:13     ` Zhang Rui
  2019-06-11 10:12       ` Pavel Machek
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Zhang Rui @ 2019-06-09 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek, kernel list, linux-acpi, rjw, viresh.kumar,
	linux-pm, tglx, mingo, bp, hpa, x86

On 日, 2019-06-09 at 14:12 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > When I start flightgear, I get framerates around 20 fps and cpu
> > > at
> > > 3GHz:
> > > 
> > > pavel@duo:~/bt$ cat /proc/cpuinfo  | grep MHz
> > > cpu MHz		    : 3027.471
> > > cpu MHz		      : 2981.863
> > > cpu MHz		      	: 2958.352
> > > cpu MHz			  : 2864.001
> > > pavel@duo:~/bt$
> > > 
> > > (Ok, fgfs is really only running at single core, so why do both
> > > cores
> > > run at 3GHz?)
> > > 
> > > But temperatures get quite high:
> > > 
> > > pavel@duo:~/bt$ sensors
> > > thinkpad-isa-0000
> > > Adapter: ISA adapter
> > > fan1:        4485 RPM
> > > 
> > > coretemp-isa-0000
> > > Adapter: ISA adapter
> > > Package id 0:  +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
> > > Core 0:        +98.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
> > > Core 1:        +91.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
> > > 
> > > And soon cpu goes to 1.5GHz range, with framerates going down to
> > > 12fps. That's a bit low.
> > > 
> > > Room temperature is 26Celsius.
> > > 
> > > The CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz . I guess it
> > > means
> > > it should be able to sustain both cores running at 2.5GHz?
> > > 
> > > Any ideas? Were there any recent changes in that area?
> > I tried kernel compile. It keeps both cores at 3GHz, temperature
> > goes
> > up over 95C, and then cpus start going down to 2.3GHz... and then
> > down
> > to 2GHz... and down to 1.9GHz.
> > 
> > watch bash -c 'sensors;  cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz'
> Situation is very different with v4.6 distro based kernel.
> 
> CPU MHz is only getting values round to 100MHz. It does not go above
> 2.5GHz, but it does not go below 2.5GHz under the load, either.
> 
> ACPI adapter appears in sensors output.

what temperature does coretemp report?
can you please provide the sensors output in 4.6 during kernel
compiling?

can you attach the output of "grep . /sys/class/thermal/thermal*/*"
when the temperature goes high in both kernels?

thanks,
rui
> 
> Now I tried going to 5.2-rc4. It behaves the same as 5.2-rc2. Goes up
> to 3GHz briefly but then down to 2.0GHz and below under load.
> 
> Ideas welcome.
> 
> Best regards,
> 									
> Pavel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-09 14:13     ` Zhang Rui
@ 2019-06-11 10:12       ` Pavel Machek
  2019-06-11 10:15         ` Viresh Kumar
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2019-06-11 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zhang Rui, daniel.lezcano
  Cc: kernel list, linux-acpi, rjw, viresh.kumar, linux-pm, tglx,
	mingo, bp, hpa, x86

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3059 bytes --]

Hi!

I'm trying to provide all the required info below. Any ideas?

> > > > The CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz . I guess it
> > > > means
> > > > it should be able to sustain both cores running at 2.5GHz?
> > > > 
> > > > Any ideas? Were there any recent changes in that area?
> > > I tried kernel compile. It keeps both cores at 3GHz, temperature
> > > goes
> > > up over 95C, and then cpus start going down to 2.3GHz... and then
> > > down
> > > to 2GHz... and down to 1.9GHz.

> what temperature does coretemp report?
> can you please provide the sensors output in 4.6 during kernel
> compiling?
> 
> can you attach the output of "grep . /sys/class/thermal/thermal*/*"
> when the temperature goes high in both kernels?

v5.2:
bash -c sensors;  cat /proc/cpuinfo

thinkpad-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
fan1:        4493 RPM

coretemp-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
Package id 0:  +97.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 0:        +97.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 1:        +94.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)

cpu MHz         : 2351.857
cpu MHz         : 2351.920
cpu MHz         : 2351.980
cpu MHz         : 2352.036
pavel@duo:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/cpufreq/scaling_governor
powersave
powersave
powersave
powersave
pavel@duo:~$ grep . /sys/class/thermal/thermal*/* 2> /dev/null
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/available_policies:step_wise
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/mode:enabled
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/passive:0
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/policy:step_wise
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/temp:96000
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/trip_point_0_temp:99000
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/trip_point_0_type:critical
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/type:acpitz
pavel@duo:~$

v4.6:

acpitz-virtual-0
Adapter: Virtual device
temp1:        +96.0°C  (crit = +99.0°C)

coretemp-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
Physical id 0:  +97.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 0:         +97.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 1:         +94.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)

thinkpad-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
fan1:        4493 RPM

cpu MHz         : 2501.000
cpu MHz         : 2501.000
cpu MHz         : 2501.000
cpu MHz         : 2501.000

pavel@duo:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/cpufreq/scaling_governor
ondemand
ondemand
ondemand
ondemand

pavel@duo:~$ grep . /sys/class/thermal/thermal*/* 2> /dev/null
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/available_policies:step_wise
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/mode:enabled
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/passive:0
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/policy:step_wise
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/temp:96000
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/trip_point_0_temp:99000
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/trip_point_0_type:critical
/sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/type:acpitz
pavel@duo:~$


-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-11 10:12       ` Pavel Machek
@ 2019-06-11 10:15         ` Viresh Kumar
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-06-11 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek
  Cc: Zhang Rui, daniel.lezcano, kernel list, linux-acpi, rjw,
	linux-pm, tglx, mingo, bp, hpa, x86

On 11-06-19, 12:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> v5.2:
> pavel@duo:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/cpufreq/scaling_governor
> powersave
> powersave
> powersave
> powersave
> 
> v4.6:
> 
> pavel@duo:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/cpufreq/scaling_governor
> ondemand
> ondemand
> ondemand
> ondemand

Hmm, the governors are different. But powersave should have picked the
lowest frequency always.

What about cpufreq driver ?

cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/cpufreq/scaling_driver

-- 
viresh

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-09 11:17 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related? Pavel Machek
  2019-06-09 11:23 ` Pavel Machek
@ 2019-06-12  2:37 ` Doug Smythies
  2019-06-12 21:44   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Doug Smythies @ 2019-06-12  2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek
  Cc: kernel list, linux-acpi, rui.zhang, rjw, viresh.kumar, linux-pm,
	tglx, mingo, bp, hpa, x86, Doug Smythies

Hi,

So, currently there seems to be 3 issues in this thread
(and I am guessing a little, without definitive data):

1.) On your system Kernel 5.4-rc2 (or 4) defaults to the intel_pstate CPU frequency
scaling driver and the powersave governor, but kernel 4.6 defaults to the
acpi-cpufreq CPU frequency scaling driver and the ondemand governor.

Suggest to check the related kernel configuration parameters.

$ grep -A 10 -i "CPU frequency scaling drivers" .config
# CPU frequency scaling drivers
#
CONFIG_X86_INTEL_PSTATE=y
CONFIG_X86_PCC_CPUFREQ=y
CONFIG_X86_ACPI_CPUFREQ=y
CONFIG_X86_ACPI_CPUFREQ_CPB=y
CONFIG_X86_POWERNOW_K8=y
CONFIG_X86_AMD_FREQ_SENSITIVITY=m
CONFIG_X86_SPEEDSTEP_CENTRINO=y
CONFIG_X86_P4_CLOCKMOD=m

2.) With kernel 5.2-rc2 there is thermal throttling (thermald?), but for 
Kernel 4.6 it either doesn't hit the throttling threshold or is not enabled.

I don't have input here.

However note that the CPU frequency verses load graphs are quite different
between acpi-cpufreq/ondemand and intel-pstate/powersave, with higher
CPU frequencies at lower loads for the acpi-cpufreq driver and higher
CPU frequencies at higher loads for the intel_pstate driver. The crossover
point is about 35% load. So, the two driver/governors might well end up at
different operating pointing terms of CPU frequencies. I do not have energy
data for the CPU frequency verses load tests, which is really what matters.

3.) The older kernel is still using the older acpi-cpufreq stuff where
some CPU frequency memory registers show what was asked for and not what
the system is actually giving.

See below.

On 2019.06.09 04:18 Pavel Machek wrote:

> When I start flightgear, I get framerates around 20 fps and cpu at
> 3GHz:
> 
> pavel@duo:~/bt$ cat /proc/cpuinfo  | grep MHz
> cpu MHz		    : 3027.471
> cpu MHz		      : 2981.863
> cpu MHz		      	: 2958.352
> cpu MHz			  : 2864.001
> pavel@duo:~/bt$
>
> (Ok, fgfs is really only running at single core, so why do both cores
> run at 3GHz?)

There is only 1 PLL (Phase Locked Loop) master clock generator in your
processor. Basically, the CPU with the highest frequency demand wins.
What is not shown in your data is that the not busy core is also
probably in a deep idle state for most of the time, consuming little or no
energy. Below is an example from my processor (i7-2600K) using
turbostat (note C6 is my deepest idle state, and only it is shown
for simplicity):

Core    CPU     Busy%   Bzy_MHz CPU%c6  PkgTmp  PkgWatt
-       -       12.52   3799    74.88   54      23.87
0       0       0.05    3664    99.89   54      23.87
0       4       0.00    3695
1       1       0.07    3676    99.87
1       5       0.00    3667
2       2       0.09    3669    99.78
2       6       0.00    3666
3       3       0.04    3786    0.00
3       7       99.92   3800

Observe the busy core spending no time in C6, but the other 3
spend most of the time there. However, for the little time that they are active,
CPU 7 is the one demanding the high CPU frequency.

Anticipated question:
"Then why aren't all the CPU frequencies exactly the same?"
My processor's max turbo frequency is a function of how many cores
are active, and so actually varies under peak demand. Excerpt from
turbostat, not in quiet mode:

35 * 100.0 = 3500.0 MHz max turbo 4 active cores
36 * 100.0 = 3600.0 MHz max turbo 3 active cores
37 * 100.0 = 3700.0 MHz max turbo 2 active cores
38 * 100.0 = 3800.0 MHz max turbo 1 active cores

> The CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz . I guess it means
> it should be able to sustain both cores running at 2.5GHz?

No, that is more a function of your hardware's ability (or lack of) to move
the waste heat away.

> Situation is very different with v4.6 distro based kernel.
> 
> CPU MHz is only getting values round to 100MHz. It does not go above
> 2.5GHz, but it does not go below 2.5GHz under the load, either.

Yes, it is going above 2.5 GHz, see below.

> v4.6:

> cpu MHz         : 2501.000
> cpu MHz         : 2501.000
> cpu MHz         : 2501.000
> cpu MHz         : 2501.000

That seems to be the old acpi-cpufreq information,
which is telling you what it's asking for and not what
it actually is. And the "01" means it is asking for turbo
range frequencies. Example from my system, while running the
above CPU 7 busy test:

Conditions: Old kernel (4.4), acpi-cpufreq driver, ondemand gov.

doug@s15:~$ grep MHz /proc/cpuinfo
cpu MHz         : 1600.000
cpu MHz         : 1600.000
cpu MHz         : 1600.000
cpu MHz         : 1600.000
cpu MHz         : 1600.000
cpu MHz         : 1600.000
cpu MHz         : 1600.000
cpu MHz         : 3401.000

CPUs 0-6 have very little load and are asking for the minimum
available frequency. CPU 7 is asking for turbo.
The turbostat data tells a different story.

Conditions: New kernel (5.2-rc3), acpi-cpufreq driver, ondemand gov.

doug@s15:~$ grep MHz /proc/cpuinfo
cpu MHz         : 3611.623
cpu MHz         : 3638.843
cpu MHz         : 3662.703
cpu MHz         : 3634.156
cpu MHz         : 3611.601
cpu MHz         : 3668.422
cpu MHz         : 3611.471
cpu MHz         : 3738.445

Conditions: New kernel (5.2-rc3), intel_pstate driver, powersave gov.

doug@s15:~$ grep MHz /proc/cpuinfo
cpu MHz         : 3651.506
cpu MHz         : 3643.422
cpu MHz         : 3611.678
cpu MHz         : 3674.237
cpu MHz         : 3612.469
cpu MHz         : 3670.185
cpu MHz         : 3612.050
cpu MHz         : 3727.283

turbosat (tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c) commands used above:

sudo turbostat --quiet --hide IRQ,Avg_MHz,SMI,\
GFXMHz,TSC_MHz,GFXWatt,CorWatt,POLL%,CPU%c1,\
CPU%c3,CPU%c7,CoreTmp,GFX%rc6,Pkg%pc2,Pkg%pc3,\
Pkg%pc6,POLL,C1,C1E,C3,C6,C1%,C1E%,C3%,C6% \
--interval 5

And:

sudo turbostat

... Doug



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-12  2:37 ` Doug Smythies
@ 2019-06-12 21:44   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  2019-06-12 23:39     ` Doug Smythies
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2019-06-12 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Doug Smythies, Pavel Machek
  Cc: kernel list, ACPI Devel Maling List, Zhang, Rui,
	Rafael J. Wysocki, Viresh Kumar, Linux PM, Thomas Gleixner,
	Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
	the arch/x86 maintainers

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:45 AM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> So, currently there seems to be 3 issues in this thread
> (and I am guessing a little, without definitive data):
>
> 1.) On your system Kernel 5.4-rc2 (or 4) defaults to the intel_pstate CPU frequency
> scaling driver and the powersave governor, but kernel 4.6 defaults to the
> acpi-cpufreq CPU frequency scaling driver and the ondemand governor.

Which means that intel_pstate works in the active mode by default and
so it uses its internal governor.

That governor is more performance-oriented than ondemand and it very
well may cause more power to be allocated for the processor - at the
expense of the GPU.

The lower-than-expected frame rate may result from that, in principle.

One way to mitigate that might be to use intel_pstate in the passive
mode (pass intel_pstate=passive to the kernel in the command line)
along with either ondemand or schedutil as the governor.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-12 21:44   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2019-06-12 23:39     ` Doug Smythies
  2019-06-13  8:11       ` Pavel Machek
  2019-06-13  8:52       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Doug Smythies @ 2019-06-12 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rafael J. Wysocki, Pavel Machek
  Cc: kernel list, ACPI Devel Maling List, Zhang, Rui,
	Rafael J. Wysocki, Viresh Kumar, Linux PM, Thomas Gleixner,
	Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
	the arch/x86 maintainers, Doug Smythies

On 2019.06.12 14:25 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:45 AM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> So, currently there seems to be 3 issues in this thread
>> (and I am guessing a little, without definitive data):
>>
>> 1.) On your system Kernel 5.4-rc2 (or 4) defaults to the intel_pstate CPU frequency
>> scaling driver and the powersave governor, but kernel 4.6 defaults to the
>> acpi-cpufreq CPU frequency scaling driver and the ondemand governor.
>
> Which means that intel_pstate works in the active mode by default and
> so it uses its internal governor.

Note sure what you mean by "internal governor"?
If you meant HWP (Hardware P-state), Pavel's processor doesn't have it.
If you meant the active powersave governor code within the driver, then agreed.

> That governor is more performance-oriented than ondemand and it very
> well may cause more power to be allocated for the processor - at the
> expense of the GPU.

O.K. I mainly use servers and so have no experience with possible GPU
verses CPU tradeoffs.

However, I did re-do my tests measuring energy instead of CPU frequency
and found very little difference between the acpi-cpufreq/ondemand verses
intel_pstate/powersave as a function of single threaded load. Actually,
I did the test twice, one at 20 hertz work/sleep frequency and also
at 67 hertz work/sleep frequency. (Of course, Pavel's processor might
well have a different curve, but it is a similar vintage to mine
i5-2520M verses i7-2600K.) The worst difference was approximately
1.1 extra processor package watts (an extra 5.5%) in the 80% to 85%
single threaded load range at 67 hertz work/sleep frequency for
the intel-pstate/powersave driver/governor. 

What am I saying? For a fixed amount of work to do per work/sleep cycle
(i.e. maybe per video frame related type work) while the CPU frequency Verses load
curves might differ, the resulting processor energy curve differs much less.
(i.e. the extra power for higher CPU frequency is for less time because it gets
the job done faster.) So, myself, I don't yet understand why only the one method
would have hit thermal throttling, but not the other (if indeed it doesn't).
Other differences between kernel 4.6 and 5.2-rc? might explain it. I did all
my tests on kernel 5.2-rc3, except that one example from kernel 4.4 on my
earlier reply, so that were not other variables than CPU scaling driver and
governor changes.

> The lower-than-expected frame rate may result from that, in principle.

> One way to mitigate that might be to use intel_pstate in the passive
> mode (pass intel_pstate=passive to the kernel in the command line)
> along with either ondemand or schedutil as the governor.

The CPU frequency verses load curves for this those two governors are very similar
for both the acpi_cpufreq and intel_cpufreq (which is the intel_pstate driver
in passive mode) drivers.

Just for information: CPU frequency verses single threaded load curves
for the conservative governor is quite different between the two drivers.
(tests done in February, perhaps I should re-do and also look at energy
at the same time, or instead of CPU frequency.)

... Doug



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-12 23:39     ` Doug Smythies
@ 2019-06-13  8:11       ` Pavel Machek
  2019-06-13  9:00         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  2019-06-13  8:52       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2019-06-13  8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Doug Smythies
  Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, kernel list, ACPI Devel Maling List, Zhang,
	Rui, Rafael J. Wysocki, Viresh Kumar, Linux PM, Thomas Gleixner,
	Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
	the arch/x86 maintainers

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3146 bytes --]

Hi!

> On 2019.06.12 14:25 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:45 AM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, currently there seems to be 3 issues in this thread
> >> (and I am guessing a little, without definitive data):
> >>
> >> 1.) On your system Kernel 5.4-rc2 (or 4) defaults to the intel_pstate CPU frequency
> >> scaling driver and the powersave governor, but kernel 4.6 defaults to the
> >> acpi-cpufreq CPU frequency scaling driver and the ondemand governor.
> >
> > Which means that intel_pstate works in the active mode by default and
> > so it uses its internal governor.
> 
> Note sure what you mean by "internal governor"?
> If you meant HWP (Hardware P-state), Pavel's processor doesn't have it.
> If you meant the active powersave governor code within the driver, then agreed.
> 
> > That governor is more performance-oriented than ondemand and it very
> > well may cause more power to be allocated for the processor - at the
> > expense of the GPU.
> 
> O.K. I mainly use servers and so have no experience with possible GPU
> verses CPU tradeoffs.
> 
> However, I did re-do my tests measuring energy instead of CPU frequency
> and found very little difference between the acpi-cpufreq/ondemand verses
> intel_pstate/powersave as a function of single threaded load. Actually,
> I did the test twice, one at 20 hertz work/sleep frequency and also
> at 67 hertz work/sleep frequency. (Of course, Pavel's processor might
> well have a different curve, but it is a similar vintage to mine
> i5-2520M verses i7-2600K.) The worst difference was approximately
> 1.1 extra processor package watts (an extra 5.5%) in the 80% to 85%
> single threaded load range at 67 hertz work/sleep frequency for
> the intel-pstate/powersave driver/governor. 
> 
> What am I saying? For a fixed amount of work to do per work/sleep cycle
> (i.e. maybe per video frame related type work) while the CPU frequency Verses load
> curves might differ, the resulting processor energy curve differs much less.
> (i.e. the extra power for higher CPU frequency is for less time because it gets
> the job done faster.) So, myself, I don't yet understand why only the one method
> would have hit thermal throttling, but not the other (if indeed it
> doesn't).

It seems there are serious differences in reporting :-(. How do I
determine which frequency CPU really runs at, in 4.6 kernel?

But it seems that your assumptions are incorrect for my workload.

flightgear is single-threaded, and in my configuration saturates the
CPU, because it would like to achieve higher framerate than my system
is capable of.

> Just for information: CPU frequency verses single threaded load curves
> for the conservative governor is quite different between the two drivers.
> (tests done in February, perhaps I should re-do and also look at energy
> at the same time, or instead of CPU frequency.)

So this might be my problem?

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-12 23:39     ` Doug Smythies
  2019-06-13  8:11       ` Pavel Machek
@ 2019-06-13  8:52       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  2019-06-18  8:20         ` Doug Smythies
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2019-06-13  8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Doug Smythies
  Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Pavel Machek, kernel list,
	ACPI Devel Maling List, Zhang, Rui, Rafael J. Wysocki,
	Viresh Kumar, Linux PM, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar,
	Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, the arch/x86 maintainers

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:40 AM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
>
> On 2019.06.12 14:25 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:45 AM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, currently there seems to be 3 issues in this thread
> >> (and I am guessing a little, without definitive data):
> >>
> >> 1.) On your system Kernel 5.4-rc2 (or 4) defaults to the intel_pstate CPU frequency
> >> scaling driver and the powersave governor, but kernel 4.6 defaults to the
> >> acpi-cpufreq CPU frequency scaling driver and the ondemand governor.
> >
> > Which means that intel_pstate works in the active mode by default and
> > so it uses its internal governor.
>
> Note sure what you mean by "internal governor"?
> If you meant HWP (Hardware P-state), Pavel's processor doesn't have it.
> If you meant the active powersave governor code within the driver, then agreed.

That's what I mean.

> > That governor is more performance-oriented than ondemand and it very
> > well may cause more power to be allocated for the processor - at the
> > expense of the GPU.
>
> O.K. I mainly use servers and so have no experience with possible GPU
> verses CPU tradeoffs.
>
> However, I did re-do my tests measuring energy instead of CPU frequency
> and found very little difference between the acpi-cpufreq/ondemand verses
> intel_pstate/powersave as a function of single threaded load. Actually,
> I did the test twice, one at 20 hertz work/sleep frequency and also
> at 67 hertz work/sleep frequency. (Of course, Pavel's processor might
> well have a different curve, but it is a similar vintage to mine
> i5-2520M verses i7-2600K.) The worst difference was approximately
> 1.1 extra processor package watts (an extra 5.5%) in the 80% to 85%
> single threaded load range at 67 hertz work/sleep frequency for
> the intel-pstate/powersave driver/governor.

I see.  Then this shouldn't matter.

> What am I saying? For a fixed amount of work to do per work/sleep cycle
> (i.e. maybe per video frame related type work) while the CPU frequency Verses load
> curves might differ, the resulting processor energy curve differs much less.
> (i.e. the extra power for higher CPU frequency is for less time because it gets
> the job done faster.) So, myself, I don't yet understand why only the one method
> would have hit thermal throttling, but not the other (if indeed it doesn't).
> Other differences between kernel 4.6 and 5.2-rc? might explain it.

Right.

I personally doubt that any thermal throttling is involved here.

> I did all my tests on kernel 5.2-rc3, except that one example from kernel 4.4 on my
> earlier reply, so that were not other variables than CPU scaling driver and
> governor changes.
>
> > The lower-than-expected frame rate may result from that, in principle.
>
> > One way to mitigate that might be to use intel_pstate in the passive
> > mode (pass intel_pstate=passive to the kernel in the command line)
> > along with either ondemand or schedutil as the governor.
>
> The CPU frequency verses load curves for this those two governors are very similar
> for both the acpi_cpufreq and intel_cpufreq (which is the intel_pstate driver
> in passive mode) drivers.

That's what I would expect.

Cheers!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-13  8:11       ` Pavel Machek
@ 2019-06-13  9:00         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2019-06-13  9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek
  Cc: Doug Smythies, Rafael J. Wysocki, kernel list,
	ACPI Devel Maling List, Zhang, Rui, Rafael J. Wysocki,
	Viresh Kumar, Linux PM, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar,
	Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, the arch/x86 maintainers

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:12 AM Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > On 2019.06.12 14:25 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:45 AM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> So, currently there seems to be 3 issues in this thread
> > >> (and I am guessing a little, without definitive data):
> > >>
> > >> 1.) On your system Kernel 5.4-rc2 (or 4) defaults to the intel_pstate CPU frequency
> > >> scaling driver and the powersave governor, but kernel 4.6 defaults to the
> > >> acpi-cpufreq CPU frequency scaling driver and the ondemand governor.
> > >
> > > Which means that intel_pstate works in the active mode by default and
> > > so it uses its internal governor.
> >
> > Note sure what you mean by "internal governor"?
> > If you meant HWP (Hardware P-state), Pavel's processor doesn't have it.
> > If you meant the active powersave governor code within the driver, then agreed.
> >
> > > That governor is more performance-oriented than ondemand and it very
> > > well may cause more power to be allocated for the processor - at the
> > > expense of the GPU.
> >
> > O.K. I mainly use servers and so have no experience with possible GPU
> > verses CPU tradeoffs.
> >
> > However, I did re-do my tests measuring energy instead of CPU frequency
> > and found very little difference between the acpi-cpufreq/ondemand verses
> > intel_pstate/powersave as a function of single threaded load. Actually,
> > I did the test twice, one at 20 hertz work/sleep frequency and also
> > at 67 hertz work/sleep frequency. (Of course, Pavel's processor might
> > well have a different curve, but it is a similar vintage to mine
> > i5-2520M verses i7-2600K.) The worst difference was approximately
> > 1.1 extra processor package watts (an extra 5.5%) in the 80% to 85%
> > single threaded load range at 67 hertz work/sleep frequency for
> > the intel-pstate/powersave driver/governor.
> >
> > What am I saying? For a fixed amount of work to do per work/sleep cycle
> > (i.e. maybe per video frame related type work) while the CPU frequency Verses load
> > curves might differ, the resulting processor energy curve differs much less.
> > (i.e. the extra power for higher CPU frequency is for less time because it gets
> > the job done faster.) So, myself, I don't yet understand why only the one method
> > would have hit thermal throttling, but not the other (if indeed it
> > doesn't).
>
> It seems there are serious differences in reporting :-(. How do I
> determine which frequency CPU really runs at, in 4.6 kernel?

With that kernel (and the acpi-cpufreq driver) the only way is to run
your workload under turbostat.

> But it seems that your assumptions are incorrect for my workload.
>
> flightgear is single-threaded, and in my configuration saturates the
> CPU, because it would like to achieve higher framerate than my system
> is capable of.
>
> > Just for information: CPU frequency verses single threaded load curves
> > for the conservative governor is quite different between the two drivers.
> > (tests done in February, perhaps I should re-do and also look at energy
> > at the same time, or instead of CPU frequency.)
>
> So this might be my problem?

Not really, because you don't use the conservative governor. :-)

Generally, I agree with Doug that CPU performance scaling is unlikely
to be the source of the symptom that you are observing.

Anyway, if you did what I had said previously (ie. run intel_pstate in
the passive mode and use ondemand as the governor) and still see
reduced frame rate (with respect to 4.6), that would basically rule
CPU performance scaling out.

Cheers!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-13  8:52       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2019-06-18  8:20         ` Doug Smythies
  2019-06-18  8:34           ` Pavel Machek
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Doug Smythies @ 2019-06-18  8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rafael J. Wysocki, Pavel Machek
  Cc: kernel list, ACPI Devel Maling List, Zhang, Rui,
	Rafael J. Wysocki, Viresh Kumar, Linux PM, Thomas Gleixner,
	Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
	the arch/x86 maintainers

On 2019.06.13 01:53 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> I personally doubt that any thermal throttling is involved here.

In earlier e-mails on this thread, Pavel showed his core and package
temperatures as 97 and 98 degrees. If thermal throttling is not
involved, it should be. The description of the observed CPU
frequencies also matched my experiences with thermal throttling
for the intel-pstate/powersave example. Myself, I can not determine
if throttling is involved for the acpi-cpufreq/ondemand
case, just from the clock frequencies, because,
at least on my system, it uses the kidle_inject method
instead of the pstate method.

I continued doing experiments, enabling thermald (normally
disabled on my system) and forcing thermal throttling on
my test server. My system never gets hot enough, so I used
a low trip point of 55 degrees.

The intel_pstate/powersave and intel_cpufreq/ondemand,
which both used the pstate method, outperformed the
acpi-cpufreq/ondemand by 30%, in a constant thermal
throttling mode. This seems the opposite of Pavel's
results, if indeed his system is thermal throttling.
(I can write these experiments up in more detail
if desired.)

On 2019.06.13 Pavel Machek wrote:

> But it seems that your assumptions are incorrect for my workload.

Fair enough. I don't have the appropriate hardware for this, and
am trying to guess at a similar workflow for testing.
Perhaps, just mudding things here rather than helping.

>
> flightgear is single-threaded, and in my configuration saturates the
> CPU, because it would like to achieve higher framerate than my system
> is capable of.

Are you sure? Use turbostat and observe.
Example 1:
intel_cpufreq/ondemand, kernel 5.2-rc3, two 100% loads:

doug@s15:~$ sudo turbostat --quiet --hide IRQ,Avg_MHz,SMI,\
> GFXMHz,TSC_MHz,CorWatt,CoreTmp,GFX%rc6,Pkg%pc2,Pkg%pc3,\
> Pkg%pc6,POLL,C1,C1E,C3,C6,C1%,C1E%,C3%,C6% \
> --interval 5
Core    CPU     Busy%   Bzy_MHz POLL%   CPU%c1  CPU%c3  CPU%c6  CPU%c7  PkgTmp  PkgWatt GFXWatt
-       -       25.24   2780    0.00    25.70   0.01    49.05   0.00    56      23.82   0.12
0       0       1.62    2781    0.00    1.90    0.02    96.46   0.00    56      23.82   0.12
0       4       0.05    2833    0.00    3.47
1       1       100.00  2780    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
1       5       0.03    2893    0.00    99.97
2       2       0.03    2906    0.00    99.97   0.00    0.00    0.00
2       6       100.00  2780    0.00    0.00
3       3       0.07    2797    0.00    0.18    0.01    99.74   0.00
3       7       0.10    2834    0.00    0.14

Example 2:
acpi_cpufreq/ondemand, kernel 5.2-rc3, two 100% loads:

doug@s15:~$ sudo turbostat --quiet --hide IRQ,Avg_MHz,SMI,\
> GFXMHz,TSC_MHz,CorWatt,CoreTmp,GFX%rc6,Pkg%pc2,Pkg%pc3,\
> Pkg%pc6,POLL,C1,C1E,C3,C6,C1%,C1E%,C3%,C6% \
> --interval 5
Core    CPU     Busy%   Bzy_MHz POLL%   CPU%c1  CPU%c3  CPU%c6  CPU%c7  PkgTmp  PkgWatt GFXWatt
-       -       18.06   3069    0.00    18.45   0.01    63.47   0.00    55      21.50   0.12
0       0       15.55   3049    0.00    1.31    0.02    83.12   0.00    55      21.50   0.12
0       4       0.64    2651    0.00    16.22
1       1       62.43   3075    0.00    8.15    0.00    29.43   0.00
1       5       7.71    3068    0.00    62.81
2       2       50.56   3091    0.00    0.78    0.00    48.66   0.00
2       6       0.44    2346    0.00    50.89
3       3       2.30    2901    0.00    5.00    0.01    92.69   0.00
3       7       4.79    3016    0.00    2.49

With the additional C6 % coming from the kidle_inj tasks.
Observation 1: The loaded CPUs migrate much more often in this scenario.
Observation 2: While the package watts are different by over 2 watts,
the long term (done over many hours) average was the same for all methods.

... Doug



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related?
  2019-06-18  8:20         ` Doug Smythies
@ 2019-06-18  8:34           ` Pavel Machek
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2019-06-18  8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Doug Smythies
  Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, kernel list, ACPI Devel Maling List, Zhang,
	Rui, Rafael J. Wysocki, Viresh Kumar, Linux PM, Thomas Gleixner,
	Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
	the arch/x86 maintainers

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]

On Tue 2019-06-18 01:20:01, Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2019.06.13 01:53 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > I personally doubt that any thermal throttling is involved here.
> 
> In earlier e-mails on this thread, Pavel showed his core and package
> temperatures as 97 and 98 degrees. If thermal throttling is not
> involved, it should be. The description of the observed CPU
> frequencies also matched my experiences with thermal throttling
> for the intel-pstate/powersave example. Myself, I can not determine
> if throttling is involved for the acpi-cpufreq/ondemand
> case, just from the clock frequencies, because,
> at least on my system, it uses the kidle_inject method
> instead of the pstate method.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it is thermal throttling. System is running >
3GHz when cold, and going below 2GHz when hot...

And I'm pretty sure the throttling works, too, because temperature
goes to ~98C quickly, and stays there.

Best regards,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-06-09 11:17 5.2-rc2: low framerate in flightgear, cpu not running at full speed, thermal related? Pavel Machek
2019-06-09 11:23 ` Pavel Machek
2019-06-09 12:12   ` Pavel Machek
2019-06-09 13:55     ` Daniel Lezcano
2019-06-09 14:13     ` Zhang Rui
2019-06-11 10:12       ` Pavel Machek
2019-06-11 10:15         ` Viresh Kumar
2019-06-12  2:37 ` Doug Smythies
2019-06-12 21:44   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-12 23:39     ` Doug Smythies
2019-06-13  8:11       ` Pavel Machek
2019-06-13  9:00         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-13  8:52       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-18  8:20         ` Doug Smythies
2019-06-18  8:34           ` Pavel Machek

Linux-PM Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/0 linux-pm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-pm linux-pm/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm \
		linux-pm@vger.kernel.org linux-pm@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-pm


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-pm


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox