New: CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor fails to throttle sufficiently.
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
Summary: CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor
fails to throttle sufficiently.
Product: Power Management
Version: 2.5
KernelVersion: 2.6.25.2
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Tree: Mainline
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: cpufreq
AssignedTo: [email protected]
ReportedBy: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Latest working kernel version: Not sure if this ever worked. Earliest failing kernel version: 2.6.23.12 definitely, probably much earlier. Hardware Environment: Dell Precision M20, aka Latitude D610.
Problem Description:
This laptop has a very poor cooling system. If the CPU is run fast for too long it will trip the thermal threshold at 101 deg C. I have been working around this for some time by using the powersave governor which keeps the CPU at the minimum 800MHz and prevents overheat. It would be nice to be able to use ondemand reliably.
The ondemand governor is okay for normal loads. Under heavy load though, as the temperature increases it will only reduce the CPU frequency from the maximum of 2GHz to the next lower setting of 1.6GHz, and then often allow it quickly back to 2GHz. This is not enough to keep the temperature down so the system will trip and shutdown.
Steps to reproduce:
Obtain one of these badly designed laptops. Set cpufreq governor to ondemand, performance, or anything else that lets the CPU stay at 1.6GHz+. while(1);
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor fails to throttle sufficiently.
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #1 from [email protected] 2008-05-09 10:39 ------- Created an attachment (id=16087)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16087&action=view)/proc/cpuinfo
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #2 from [email protected] 2008-05-09 10:40 ------- Created an attachment (id=16088)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16088&action=view)
acpidump output
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #3 from [email protected] 2008-05-09 10:45 ------- I should add that I have checked the fan which is clean and runs at full speed, the heatsink is attached and looks okay. The system works okay in Windows.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |[email protected]
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #4 from [email protected] 2008-05-11 09:25 ------- Odd. ACPI thermal throttling should have kicked in at some point.
Can you paste the output of the contents of /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/*/* ?
Relying on cpufreq to keep this functional at all seems wrong.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #5 from [email protected] 2008-05-11 10:09 ------- From /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THM:
cooling_mode: <setting not supported>polling_frequency: <polling disabled>
state: state: ok
temperature: temperature: 60 Ctrip_points: critical (S5): 101 C
The reported temperature does climb to the trip point.
Some throttling clearly does kick in when fully loaded using ondemand, as the frequency drops to 1.6GHz for a bit, and the temperature drops back into the 90s. As soon as it does though, the frequency jumps back to 2GHz. Eventually everything heats up sufficiently that the short drops in frequency aren't enough to keep the core under the limit when it goes back to 2GHz.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |[email protected] AssignedTo|[email protected] |acpi_power-processor@kernel- | |bugs.osdl.org Component|cpufreq |Power-Processor Product|Power Management |ACPI
------- Comment #6 from [email protected] 2008-05-11 10:33 ------- I'm reassigning this to ACPI. Cpufreq doesn't really have enough information at the layer it lives at to make the sort of decisions necessary. ACPI does have code to limit the number of P states that cpufreq will scale to, so I suspect that code needs tweaking in some manner so that the limiting happens for a longer period.
Signature · 5 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ondemand governor fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #7 from [email protected] 2008-05-11 11:04 ------- Yeah, it looks like this is the business of drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c, but I don't really know enough about this stuff to debug it.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|CPU overheats at high |CPU overheats at high
|frequencies, ondemand |frequencies, ACPI fails to
|governor fails to throttle |throttle sufficiently.
|sufficiently. |Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |[email protected] | |m
------- Comment #8 from [email protected] 2008-05-11 18:36 ------- Hmm, it's true that ACPI may change the processor P/T-state for thermal control.
But all of this is done _IF_ the processor is used as the passive cooling device in this thermal zone, i.e. it's listed in the _PSL method, which is not true in the acpidump attached.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #9 from [email protected] 2008-05-11 18:40 ------- If there's a defined critical temperature, then we should probably ensure that the procesor doesn't reach it - regardless of whether we have a listed passive cooling method or not.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #10 from [email protected] 2008-05-11 19:27 ------- Right, so the main problem is the overheating.
I saw an interrupt storm bug report on the Dell M20, don't know if it is related.
please attach the content of "/proc/interrupt".
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #11 from [email protected] 2008-05-11 19:53 ------- From the acpidump in the comment #2 it seems that there only exists the definition of "critical trip points temperature". And when the temperature reaches the critical degress , OSPM will perform the criticial shutdown.
Quoted 1 line
Method (
_CRT, 0, NotSerialized)
{
> Store (0x65, Local0)
> Multiply (Local0, 0x0A, Local0)
> Add (Local0, 0x0AAC, Local0)
> Return (Local0)
> }What Rui said in comment #8 is right. If the ACPI changes the processor P/T-state for thermal control, the _PSL object is required, which returns the passive coolling device list.(Of course the _PSV object is also required.) If the ACPI turns on/off fan device for the thermal control, the _ALx object is required, which returns the list of fan cooling device. (Of course the _ACx object is also required).
Unfortunately the above objects doesn't exist on this laptop. And there is no cooling device that can be used to cool the system temperature.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #12 from [email protected] 2008-05-11 21:36 ------- Have you taken the heatsink *off*, scrubbed off the old goo and applied fresh heatsink paste? I've fixed two laptops with severe overheating problems this way.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #13 from [email protected] 2008-05-12 00:27 ------- Created an attachment (id=16105)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16105&action=view)/proc/interrupts
After system startup, with governor set to powersave.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #14 from [email protected] 2008-05-12 00:37 ------- Created an attachment (id=16106)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16106&action=view)/proc/interrupts after heatup
/proc/interrupts after heating to 98C with ondemand governor and full load.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #15 from [email protected] 2008-05-12 00:45 ------- The fan on this system can be monitored and controlled via the i8k module. The BIOS seems to do a good job of managing it by itself - it runs slow most of the time and ramps up to high speed above about 85C - so I don't bother loading that module and running the userspace daemons that go with it for configurable fan control. Making that driver register a cooling device with the generic thermal code would probably be straightforward.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #16 from [email protected] 2008-05-12 00:52 -------
Re: heatsink paste, it might help, but the reason this is a bug is that Windows copes fine, and that it is clearly possible to stop the system overheating. From the point of view of a non-technical user, Windows works but Linux just switches itself off when they do anything intensive for a long period.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #17 from [email protected] 2008-05-12 17:59 ------- What Martin said in comment #15 is right. It seems that the fan can be monitored and controlled via the I8K module.( The I8K module is dedicated to some Dell laptops).
Please set "CONFIG_I8K" in kernel configuration and see whether the system still is overheated.
Thanks.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #18 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 01:25 ------- Dell do not recommend the use of the i8k module to control the fans. This overrides BIOS control.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #19 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 01:31 ------- Having the i8k module loaded doesn't make any difference to the thermal situation. All it does is expose some ioctls that let you read and write the fan status. Without it, or with it loaded and the fan status not changed, the BIOS deals with the fans. The BIOS is already setting the fan speed to maximum long before the CPU overheats.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #20 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 02:19 ------- I have similar problem with FSC Amilo Pro V3505 ... there is something wrong between temperature sensing and the fan control, it often happens that the fan runs at the same speed regardless of the temperature. In such case, if the system gets under continuous load, it reaches the limit and switches off.
As comments #9 and #16 suggest, something should be done to stop the processor generating more heat before the critical point is reached, not relying on anything external like increasing the fan speed etc. Even if "something" means completely stopping system and doing only empty cycles for a few seconds, it would be better then leaving it to die, risking filesystem corruption etc.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |[email protected]
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #21 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 04:19 -------
Re: comment #20, failure to spin up the fan on the V3505 is a separate problem and should be filed as a separate bug, I think. The issue being discussed here is about throttling the CPU to prevent an overheat when the fan is not doing enough. Getting this right might prevent an overheat on the V3505 machine also, but the fan problem needs to be addressed separately as well.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] CPU overheats at high frequencies, ACPI fails to throttle sufficiently.
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #22 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 05:24 ------- (In reply to comment #21)
Quoted 2 lines
Re: comment #20, failure to spin up the fan on the V3505 is a separate problem and should be filed as a separate bug, I think.
I'll have to investigate further, I suspect some hardware failure ...
Quoted 4 lines
The issue being discussed here is about throttling the CPU to prevent an overheat when the fan is not doing enough. Getting this right might prevent an overheat on the V3505 machine also, but the fan problem needs to be addressed separately as well.
exactly - I just wanted to say that it is not a matter of renewing the heatsink paste, but rather a common problem which should be prevented at any point where it is possible
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |acpi-
| |[email protected]
| |et
Status|NEW |REJECTED
Component|Power-Processor |Power-Thermal
Resolution| |DOCUMENTED
Summary|CPU overheats at high |thermal shutdown - Dell
|frequencies, ACPI fails to |Precision M20, Latitude D610
|throttle sufficiently. |------- Comment #23 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 17:39 ------- I agree that it is a Linux problem that the D610 overheats when running, when it doesn't overheat running Windows.
However, that doesn't mean that it is either a
Linux/cpufreq bug or a Linux/ACPI bug.
cpufreq has zero responsibility for cooling the system. Even though you've been successful at using it for that purpose, that is not what it is designed to do. (nor do I think should it be -- particularly for a system like this one that doesn't provide any OS thermal control)
Further, the D610 is not providing Linux the ACPI hooks needed to either control the fan or passively cool the CPU.
The fact that the system overheats when the fans are running full blast means that either the cooling hardware is failing or the system was designed outside thermal guidelines. Don't assume that the later is impossible...
I had a D600 a while back that would invoke throttling via SMM -- confused the heck out of my benchmark results... I could sometimes observe this by tracking
the contents of /proc/acpi/processor/*/throttling
My assumption is that Windows has some "special sauce" from Dell in the form of a platform specific driver to help the D610 run Windows properly. The fix for Linux is for Dell to provide the same assistance to Linux.
The i8k is the only weapon we have, as far as i know.
Dell never shipped Linux on this box, so I have zero expectation that they'd go provide something at this point. Indeed, for a box this old, I wouldn't even expect a BIOS update from Dell. However, as the BIOS is the code controlling your thermals when Linux is running, you should certainly verify that you're running the latest BIOS that is available...
I'm closing this as "Documented".
After you verify that you're running the latest BIOS and that it provides no BIOS SETUP knobs related to cooling, and after you re-assemble your thermal solution using arctic-silver or whatever and find that it doesn't help...
I recommend that you work around this by using ondemand, but limit the maximum frequency via /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #24 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 17:47 ------- Len,
I disagree. Here's a patch-set I've been working on that provides what should be a decent workaround for this issue, without having any negative impact on functional machines.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #25 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 17:49 ------- Created an attachment (id=16133)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16133&action=view)
Enable polling when no _TZP method in thermal zone
Fix Linux to conform to 11.3.18 of the ACPI spec 3.0. In the absence of a _TZP method, we should be polling at a default frequency. While it can be argued that "0" is a default frequency, I don't think that's what the spec authors had in mind.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #26 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 17:50 ------- Created an attachment (id=16134)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16134&action=view)
Export the list of processor handles from the ACPI core to drivers
Add a convenience structure to the ACPI core that allows drivers to obtain the list of CPU devices. This is left in the core since the scanning is performed at boot time and the drivers may be built as modules. There's probably a cleaner way to do this.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #27 from [email protected] 2008-05-13 17:53 ------- Created an attachment (id=16135)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16135&action=view)
Add a passive cooling limit to zones which don't have one
If a thermal zone is provided with a critical temperature, then there is obviously a concern on the part of the vendor that it may overheat. Currently Linux will only attempt to do something about that if the vendor has explicitly added a passive cooling trip point. However, it's clear that allowing the system to hit the critical trip point is far from ideal - the system will immediately shut down, and data will almost certainly be lost. This patch adds a default passive cooling zone if the platform does not provide its own, with the default being to have it be 5 degrees below the critical shutoff temperature. This should avoid the kernel limiting performance unless it's genuinely likely that the hardware is about to overheat and shut down. The default temperature value can be overridden by passing the thermal.psv argument at boot or module load time.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REJECTED |CLOSED
------- Comment #28 from [email protected] 2008-05-14 00:36 -------
re: comment #25
The wording in ACPI 3.0 is incorrect, and will be fixed in ACPI 4.0:
http://www.acpica.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=714
This has come up before, and until the ACPI bug report above, the "documentation" has been this commit log:
If we implemented the patch in comment #25, we would be swimming against the stream of "common industry practice". The proof is systems like that in bug #8842, which would break.
Thus, the patch in comment #25 must not be applied.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #29 from [email protected] 2008-05-14 04:40 -------
Quoted 2 lines
After you verify that you're running the latest BIOS and that it provides no BIOS SETUP knobs related to cooling
I can confirm that the BIOS is the latest version, A06. There are no options related to cooling in the BIOS setup.
Quoted 2 lines
and after you re-assemble your thermal solution using arctic-silver or whatever and find that it doesn't help...
I am not rebuilding my laptop at this point. Even if some fancy thermal paste helps, I very much doubt I am the only person with this issue, and Linux should work for everybody, not just those willing to hack around with the kernel and disassemble their laptops. I am keeping it as-is for now so that we have a readily accessible test case.
Matthew - I will test the patches you have posted.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #30 from [email protected] 2008-05-15 04:36 ------- I have now tested the patches from comments #25-27 on 2.6.25.2, and they work perfectly. Passive cooling kicks in above 96C and uses all the available frequencies. I can deliberately block the fan and it still won't overheat, but is still able to spend most of its time at 2GHz by short bursts of passive cooling.
Presumably however this all depends on the temperature being polled due to the patch in comment #25. If that patch is not acceptable, is there a better way to do this?
If the trip point is programmable, perhaps in this case (critical trip point only) we could reprogram the hardware trip point to a few C below that and start polling only when we hit that lower limit, but still keep the shutdown threshold at the BIOS-defined critical setting.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #31 from [email protected] 2008-05-15 04:48 ------- My proposal would be to only enable polling if there's no existing passive trip point. THat would avoid breaking the system in #8842.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #32 from [email protected] 2008-05-15 04:50 ------- Note that there is an error in the comment #26 patch, the EXPORT_SYMBOL(processor_list) line should read EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_processor_list).
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #33 from [email protected] 2008-05-15 10:42 ------- I agree with Len that:
Enable polling when no _TZP method in thermal zone
in general is not a good idea.
tzp was a module parameter for thermal, does this not work anymore for latest kernels?
IMO this should better be done via dmi for the D610 only, there are already dmi specific hooks in thermal.c setting tzp...
It's ugly, but you could set up the whole passive trip point inside a dmi entry.
Len probably can accept this?
On longterm there will be the possibility to do passive cooling without ACPI, either in userspace, hopefully in kernel space. It's something I like to see for quite some time already. Matthew, if you are interested I'd like to CC you in relevant posts. Getting some support in this area would be great.
Len, pls reopen. Dell Latitude not being supported is not acceptable. Not sure, but AFAIK D610 and D800 were even one of default Novell employee laptops... (too late to bring up enough humour and add a smiley here).
BTW: Has someone an idea why these are overheating now? Did you make sure the fan slots are clean (I fixed up a bug like that recently).
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #34 from [email protected] 2008-05-15 11:35 -------
Quoted 3 lines
BTW: Has someone an idea why these are overheating now? Did you make sure the fan slots are clean (I fixed up a bug like that recently).
The fan and heatsink are clean, as I've said already. The only other thing I could do is to apply new heatsink paste, but I'm trying to retain a consistent test case for this bug. If the paste is a problem it will apply to many laptops as they age. Windows seems to cope with that, so Linux should too.
The same issue could arise just as easily in other ways, e.g. using a system in a hot climate, when the BIOS engineers tested it in an air-conditioned office. It seems to me that this applies to any system with a critical trip point but without a passive cooling point defined, so I'd rather see something like the patch in comment #27 applied, than a hack for the D610.
As to the remaining issue of how to find out we're approaching the limit, could anyone tell me if my suggestion in comment #30 is feasible?
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #16133|0 |1
is obsolete| |
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #16135|0 |1
is obsolete| |
------- Comment #35 from [email protected] 2008-05-16 11:36 ------- Created an attachment (id=16166)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16166&action=view)
Add a passive cooling limit to zones which don't have one
This patch does two new things. Firstly, it only enables polling when the hardware doesn't already have a passive zone. That stops bug #8842 from hitting us. Secondly, if a thermal zone contains a _TZD package, that is used rather than flagging it as applying to all CPUs. This won't currently do anything for devices other than CPUs as there's no kernel support, but it could be tied in through the generic thermal layer once we start seeing devices that can handle it.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|CLOSED |REOPENED
Resolution|DOCUMENTED |------- Comment #36 from [email protected] 2008-05-19 04:33 ------- The patch in comment #35 works for me.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #37 from [email protected] 2008-05-19 08:24 ------- I agree with Len and would also not activate thermal polling by default. This often is very slow and might cause problems on other machines where the BIOS vendor intended to not poll the temperature (and e.g. notify OS through a thermal event).
Matthew, what is so wrong about putting this into a dmi list?
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #38 from [email protected] 2008-05-19 08:34 ------- Because there's no reason to believe that it's something that can be well determined at the per-model level. I can't see any situation in which polling could trigger bugs, other than the one described in #8842 (which this won't hit). I appreciate the concerns about performance, though I haven't been able to trigger any on machines here. If it's an issue, then we could simply skip this on any hardware where reading the trip points takes a significant quantity of time. I suspect that most of the thermal zone performance issues have vanished now we default to burst mode in the ec driver, though.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #39 from [email protected] 2008-05-19 14:34 ------- Unless I'm missing something we're talking about polling every 10 seconds until we hit the passive limit, and then every second. It surprises me that this is a performance issue. Does one need some slow & intensive polled I/O loop to read the temperature sensor or something?
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #40 from [email protected] 2008-05-19 14:39 ------- It used to be the case that reading some hardware attached to embedded controllers would block the kernel for a significant period of time while it polled for completion, but I believe that we're interrupt driven on pretty much all hardware now.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |[email protected], | |[email protected]
------- Comment #41 from [email protected] 2008-05-20 00:55 ------- We (until OpenSUSE 10.x) used to set tzp by default on older distris (via userspace override) and got convinced by Len that the thermal management might still work reliable on most/all machines.
There were (in the end rare) problems in the past with EC reads because of thermal polling, but yes, really rare or even no problems at all in the end (Alexey should know better about possible problems here).
Still having a non-polling system by default should be the goal, IMO. Polling is a well known workaround in a lot parts, if everything is workarounded in this way, you get a whole bunch of polling threads and the whole asynchronous concept (not only in ACPI) is not worth much anymore. And polling on slow IO HW is even worse...
Adding Alexey and Jean, they have a lot experience in reading/writing on such HW.
Alexey,Jean: Matthew wants to enable temperature polling every 10 seconds if a thermal zone does not export a polling variable. He also wants to introduce a passive trip point (if none exists) which is set 5 degree below the critical temperature trip point.
Disadvantage:
- Some machines inform OS via thermal events. Those are doing it right and get punished by polling
- EC problems on some machines?
- IMO ACPI thermal.c is the wrong place. On long-term this should be integrated into arch independent hwmon structures where the trip points are stored now.
- Normally the ACPI BIOS design should still be capable of avoiding a critical shutdown. If not this is a BIOS defect and such things (if not a general problem) should IMO be solved in a blacklist.
Advantage:
- Theoretically no critical shutdowns any more -> this should work out on a lot machines, even on these with dusty fan slots.
- On OpenSUSE 11.0 we enabled a 3D Desktop feature by default, causing a lot machines with not capable graphics cards running much hotter, some with critical temperature shut downs (Trying a bit with graphics card drivers on the Dell might also be worth to know more about the shutdowns...)
Summary (from my side):
I tend to like this workaround. We need something for short-term in thermal.c, the question is whether it should get embedded into a dmi list or activated by default. As I now remember that we had tzp set by default, I do not see a stability problem, it's not perfect, but I cannot judge (Alexey, Jean?) how bad the HW accesses are or could be on some worst case machines.
IMO, on longterm such an interface should exist for hwmon, tunable (polling, lowering passive trip point) from userland.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #42 from [email protected] 2008-05-20 02:04 ------- How much effort it is to access the temperature registers, depend on the type of sensor device. LPC access is very fast, while SMBus access is slower. However, reading a single register value over SMBus is not a problem, and polling every 10 seconds is totally reasonable.
So I see no problem with Matthew's proposal in this respect.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #43 from [email protected] 2008-05-21 01:47 -------
Quoted 4 lines
Alexey,Jean: Matthew wants to enable temperature polling every 10 seconds if a thermal zone does not export a polling variable. He also wants to introduce a passive trip point (if none exists) which is set 5 degree below the critical temperature trip point.
To clarify: Matthew's updated patch in comment #35 only enables polling where the system has a critical trip point but no passive trip point. For machines that define both, everything would still be done asynchronously.
It's just this one awkward case where without polling, we only know about the overheat when it's too late to do anything.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #44 from [email protected] 2008-05-21 05:26 -------
Quoted 2 lines
To clarify: Matthew's updated patch in comment #35 only enables polling where the system has a critical trip point but no passive trip point.
This should be a lot laptops and most recent desktops.
In very rare cases you could also have several thermal zones with a critical trip point defined.
I like the patch (when several EC reads do not take more than a second anymore and HW access is not a concern which seem to be the case...), it makes the whole ACPI thermal management more robust.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #16134|0 |1
is obsolete| |
------- Comment #45 from [email protected] 2008-05-21 05:58 ------- Created an attachment (id=16227)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16227&action=view)
Export the list of processor handles from the ACPI core to drivers
Fixed version of the processor list patch
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|acpi_power-processor@kernel-|[email protected] |bugs.osdl.org | Status|REOPENED |NEW
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
------- Comment #46 from [email protected] 2008-06-03 10:29 ------- Consider the cause of bug 8842.
The BIOS exported a bogus _PSV of 50C.
Linux polled the thermal zone and dutifully throttled the processor when it hit 50C, severely impacting
performance under normal use.
Why did windows not run into this problem?
Because Windows doesn't poll, and thus never
exposed a very obvious BIOS bug.
If Linux polls, it exposes itself to an area of BIOS and EC which was NOT VALIDATED ON WINDOWS.
Whelp, the reality today is that in the horizontal PC computer industry, if it isn't validated on Windows, it isn't validated at all.
So the stated goal of the Linux/ACPI sub-system is to take the pragmatic course of making systems work by attempting to exercise the validated paths through their BIOS/EC/firmware rather than the non-validated paths. However, any other strategy would be wildly impractical.
That is why Linux must NOT enable
polling by default on any system which hasn't
been validated to handle it properly.
So I'll be delighted to accept a patch that recognizes a broken machine via DMI and invokes a workaround -- -- as long as it doesn't hurt other instances of the same machine that do not have the problem. The workaround must not be deployed for all machines -- even if the profile where it is applied seems narrow, it would apply to thousands of models.
Re: making Linux smarter about thermals.
I agree with this desire, and we implemented the generic thermal I/F was explicitly to help out with this.
It applies to both ACPI and non-ACPI systems.
However, you must realize that on the population of
ACPI systems in the marketplace, there are some significant practical constraints on the ability of the OS to do something other than what ACPI intends.
In particular, the ACPI BIOS owns the trip points --
Linux does not. The ACPI EC decides if and when
to send an event to the OS. If we change what
Linux thinks is a trip point, that doesn't mean
that the EC will send us an event when the temperature crosses it. Further, the ACPI BIOS has the right to re-define trip points at run time, and to implement hysteresis it often does this. On some machines the EC will send us interesting
temperature change events, and on some machines it will not. ie. the phantom _PSV scheme may work on some systems
and not on others -- it would require polling to make sure we notice the temperature change;
but polling is itself problematic per above.
Martin,
Quoted 1 line
The system works okay in Windows.
Can you figure out what it is doing?
Are there any Dell or platforms specific drivers present? Is it throttling the processor when it gets hot?
Please attach the output from this command when the machine is warm:
grep . /sys/firmware/acpi/interrupts/*
It will show us which GPEs are firing and perhaps give some insight into a DSDT which is apparently full of SMI abuse.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #47 from [email protected] 2008-06-03 10:55 ------- Len,
if there were any significant body of hardware where infrequently reading the temperature caused problems, I suspect we'd have heard about it. However, this is a straightforward patch with no further dependencies - it's trivial to back it out if it turns out it does break things.
Our hardware usage profile is always going to diverge from Windows to some extent. Where that results in undesirable behaviour, the obvious fix is to modify our behaviour to be more like Windows. That doesn't mean that we should constrain our functionality by refusing to diverge from Windows' behaviour even if we have no reason to believe it would break anything! The issue with bug #8842 was not the polling per se, but the ridiculously low passive cooling point. Nobody has yet demonstrated a system where polling would genuinely cause problems, but we have a demonstrated case where this code helps existing users.
In the long run we'll want functionality like this for non-broken hardware anyway (datacentre thermal constraints, for instance), and putting it in the kernel is significantly safer than leaving it sitting in userspace with unknown latency requirements. It's something that could be done at the generic thermal class layer instead, but I'd prefer for that to mature further before moving it there.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #48 from [email protected] 2008-06-03 11:40 ------- Phantom ACPI _PSV trip points are not how datacenter thermal constraints will be managed. In datacenters,
Node Manager informs the OS to stay within a maximum P-state, and if that is insufficient, then it resorts
to a maximum T-state. This mechanism is already in place and already working. And it is not dependent on Node Manager, that is just an example of a commercial implementation.
The object of this bug report is to work-around a single instance of a single 3-year-old notebook that has broken thermals -- while not breaking any other systems.
If we could figure out how Windows copes with this box in the process, that might also be useful in pointing out a gap in the Linux implementation.
So lets get this sighting dealt with and if we find a torrent of systems such the the DMI list becomes large, then it makes sense to consider broader deployment.
Martin,
Please attach the output from dmidecode.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #49 from [email protected] 2008-06-03 12:00 ------- Your description of node manager is effectively identical to using a fake _PSV
- it's just got a wider range of temperature information available to it. In either case you're polling the temperature sensors and limiting P states if the temperature rises above a certain point and is trending upwards. Implementing this in-kernel in a generic way would facilitate both, and avoid the issues with hadling it in userspace (such as OOM situations allowing your machine to leave its thermal envelope - the current implemetation of the generic thermal class even disables in-kernel handling of critical shutdown temperatures!)
But this is not purely an issue with a single machine. Distribution bugzillas have multiple entries from users facing this issue, on a range of hardware platforms. If the sole objection to this is "Windows doesn't behave like this, and hypothetical hardware might not like it" then I'd rather we went with it until an example of such hardware is shown to exist.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #50 from [email protected] 2008-06-03 12:12 ------- Created an attachment (id=16383)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16383&action=view)
grep . /sys/firmware/acpi/interrupts/* output when system hot.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #51 from [email protected] 2008-06-03 12:12 ------- Created an attachment (id=16384)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16384&action=view)
dmidecode output
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #52 from [email protected] 2008-06-03 12:21 ------- See previous attachments, and I will see what I can do about figuring out why Windows works.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #53 from [email protected] 2008-06-03 18:09 ------- (In reply to comment #49)
Quoted 3 lines
the current implemetation of the generic thermal
class even disables in-kernel handling of critical shutdown temperatures!
Hah, after talk with thomas, the guy who works on the menlow thermal user application, I'm about to send out the patch to fix this.
i.e. ACPI thermal driver will handle critical shutdown even in "user" mode.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #16166|0 |1
is obsolete| |
Attachment #16227|0 |1
is obsolete| |------- Comment #54 from [email protected] 2008-06-11 09:56 ------- Created an attachment (id=16459)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16459&action=view)
Implement management in the generic thermal class
Martin, any chance you can give this a go? It works fine here, keeping the temperature at the defined level. It uses the generic thermal class rather than the somewhat hacky approach of doing it in the ACPI layer.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #55 from [email protected] 2008-06-12 13:14 ------- I've just tested the patch in comment #54 on 2.6.26-rc5. I had to add an #include <linux/workqueue.h> to the patched thermal_sys.c to build it. It works just the same as the previous ACPI patch, i.e. perfectly.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #56 from [email protected] 2008-06-12 13:16 ------- I will be on vacation from 05/30 until 06/22 and will be back on 06/23. Please contact Suresh B Siddha / Len Brown / Arjan van de Ven for any urgent issues. Thanks, Venki
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|[email protected]| |m |
------- Comment #57 from [email protected] 2008-06-12 13:42 ------- I've just had a look at what Windows XP is up to as well.
I had a look through the drivers visible in Device Manager. All the ACPI and other system devices are the standard Microsoft drivers, I don't see any Dell magic.
To get a better idea what was going on I ran the I8KfanGUI software[1] with all its control options turned off - i.e. just using it as a monitoring app. What happened was extremely similar to the results of Matthew's patches - at around 96-98 degrees, the CPU speed would drop until the temperature recovered.
Now it's possible, based solely on those results, that my checking the temperature sensors was causing the OS to notice the rising temperature when it normally wouldn't. But there must still be some logic somewhere that caused it to attempt passive cooling, without a _PSV trip point in the DSDT. Also, even with I8KfanGUI shut down, I still can't get the system to shutdown with 100% load and the fan outlet deliberately blocked.
[1] http://www.diefer.de/i8kfan/index.html
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #58 from [email protected] 2008-06-24 04:50 ------- Comment #57 is the prove that Windows is:
a) Polling the temperature even the BIOS does not tell the OS to dos so (at least not in ACPI specified way)
b) Windows providing a kind of virtual passive trip point
The sad story is that this has been brought up already (set polling by default, provide a possibility to lower or create passive trip points).
It took 3 years to prove that Windows is doing it. Nobody will prove whether only XP is polling or also Vista or other flavors. Nobody will ever prove whether (quite likely) this is a machine/model specific Windows workaround.
So while "Windows is doing it" is the keyword for Len to add something, this is a nice example that the "Windows compatibility" argument is not worth much (for most/all things not related to general ASL syntax).
IMO this should still go into a DMI blacklist (as the machine violates the specs). General rule should be blacklisting spec violating machines, not adding "Windows compatibility" bug workarounds in general. Windows behavior might change again in two years, staying close to the specs is always the best.
But please add something... (I even don't mind adding this workaround in general, punishing systems who take care about the Spec and Linux), there has been enough bad publicity like "Linux may overheat your system, you don't get a Cent if this happens and your vendor does not support Linux". I mean of course you are better off buying a SUSE pre-loaded Linux supported Lenovo T61 if you are working on Linux...
Thermal management affected -> increasing serverity of the bug. Pfff, I cannot even change the severity.
Why is the bug still set to needinfo? Can someone remove it and assign it to Len again.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
[email protected] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEEDINFO |NEW
------- Comment #59 from [email protected] 2008-06-24 07:21 ------- Thomas - just curious, how is the machine violating the specs? You said in comment #44 that having a critical trip point without a passive one was normal in "a lot laptops and most recent desktops"?
I'd much rather see a generic solution to this than just a DMI special case for this machine. There are lots of similar reports in various forums and distro bugzillas, and the solutions people are using are messy userspace hacks.
How do people feel about Matthew's approach in the comment #54 patch, of doing this in the generic thermal layer rather than in ACPI?
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug 10658] thermal shutdown - Dell Precision M20, Latitude D610
In reply to [email protected]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10658
------- Comment #60 from [email protected] 2008-06-25 06:58 -------
Quoted 1 line
how is the machine violating the specs?
The thermal zone must provide a sane _TZP Thermal Zone Polling and a passive cooling trip point to provide a proper thermal management.
Ok, in strict sense they are not violating the spec here if the critical shut down is intended. But it is not.
Quoted 1 line
I'd much rather see a generic solution to this...
I am all against compatibility to specific Microsoft OS bugs and workarounds. (This depends, say all workarounds that can be fixed with _OSI hooks). We will end up with double polling temp on a lot machines and punish those who are doing it right, e.g. HP sends thermal events. While Microsoft will fix their bug with their next OS Release or a Service Pack.
But as I already said, I agree that thermal management is too important and a generic solution is also very appreciated from my side.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.