> > Hi all, > > I already answered this thread while ago. I can just confirm what Jean told. > > > >>>> I confirm this. > >>>> I *know* that temperatures reported now are wrong. > > > > And how do you know? The newly reported temperatures could be correct > > and the previous ones were incorrect (that's actually the case.) The > > thing is, the temperature is stored as a relative value in the CPU. > > Relative to what, depends on the CPU model, can be 85°C or 100°C. Up to > > kernel 2.6.24 we had a set of rules to find out, in 2.6.25 we have a > > presumably better heuristic. So some people have seen their CPU > > temperature climb by 15°C and others drop by 15°C, that's expected. > > Yes exactly. I decided to move to 0-100C scale, and move the limit too. > Of course some users with too low jumped to better scale some like you seems to > complain now. > > > >>> i have watercooling, and well :P when i touch the "tube", its normal > >>> room temperature, and believe me, i would notice if it was 45.. this is > >>> with my cpu at idle - at full load on all 4 cores, temp2 says 35, and > >>> ~60 on coretemp, and THIS i would surely be able to notice over room > >>> temp :) > > > > The coretemp driver reports the CPU _core_ temperature. That's not > > something you can touch, believe me (unless you are an electron.) > > > > Also note that the CPU temperature reported by the IT8718F may or may > > not match the reality. To make sure, you'd need to know the type of > > thermal diode expected by the IT8718F, the type of thermal diode in > > your CPU, compute the correction factor if there is one. And you'd need > > to know where the thermal diode is exactly. It is most certainly built > > into the CPU, but some motherboard makers are doing weird things. > > > > 22°C seems very low to me, even for water-cooling. Note that > > non-linearity of thermal diodes makes measurements inaccurate as they > > get away from the expected operating point. I guess that thermal diodes > > used in CPUs are calibrated for best results around the expected > > temperature when using air-cooling, rather than water-cooling. > > > >>> any progress on this bug? > > > > I still need to be convinced that there is a bug here. > > It is not a bug, a max limit changed too, it is just matter how to scale it. The > temperature is non-physical so comparing it to physical temperature does not > make any sense. I'm sorry I did not invent this relative temp stuff - Complain > @intel. They have some calibration of TjMAX for mobiles, but this bit does not > work for desktops/servers. I tried really hard to get at LEAST some > documentation so the driver looks like it looks. And not > guessed/guessed/guessed/how it looked earlier. > > > > > >>>> The reason is that bios did report same temperatures as coretemp in 2.6.24, > >>>> moreover some time ago I have run a cpu tool (don't remember its name) on windows > > It was most likely coretemp - I'm in contact with the guy. We share infos. > > > >>>> temperature of both cores > >>>> (I had to run this on windows - intel haven't released > >>>> drivers for their QST for temperature monitoring from bios - very sad) > >>>> > >>>> And the driver did say in kernel log that TJMAX is 85C > > > > Which driver, which kernel? As I wrote above, the coretemp heuristic > > changed in kernel 2.6.25, so the fact that a previous kernel was > > reporting a different tjmax value is irrelevant. Unless you have > > additional documentation from Intel, I would tend to believe that the > > coretemp driver in 2.6.25 is correct. But feel free to report the exact > > CPU model you have (with CPUID info) to Rudolf, if he gets enough > > reports about a specific CPU model which most people believe gets the > > wrong tjmax, he can fix the driver. > > Well again, I tried hard at Intel and I really could not get any info on some > calibration bit. The temperature is non-physical on arbitrary scale. I changed > that so for some people it jumped to 100C, for some it remained. > > > >>>> Lets at least make a kernel option to override tjmax? > > > > That's a possibility for sure, but what we would really need is to > > adjust the coretemp driver heuristics to always get it right - if > > that's not already the case, that is. I'll let Rudolf decide anyway. > > Well again, Intel swears there is no way how to get the TjMAX for > desktops/servers. It sucks but this is not my fault. > > Thanks, > Rudolf > Hi Rudolf, hi @ all, so we were just too concerned all the time & even though the temperatures seem too high there's nothing to worry ? I'd be more tranquilized if I had the old temperatures ;) but like lm_sensors's output states - it's not bad until I / we're getting temperatures from 85°C (?) [in this particular case], ... @lkml, Linus: sorry for all the noise ;) Len, here's the output of sensors (lm_sensors): with acpi thermal-support compiled in: w83627ehf-isa-0290 Adapter: ISA adapter VCore: +1.12 V (min = +0.00 V, max = +1.74 V) in1: +12.36 V (min = +13.46 V, max = +13.46 V) ALARM AVCC: +3.34 V (min = +4.08 V, max = +2.03 V) ALARM 3VCC: +3.34 V (min = +3.92 V, max = +3.95 V) ALARM in4: +1.70 V (min = +1.53 V, max = +2.04 V) in5: +1.59 V (min = +2.04 V, max = +1.02 V) ALARM in6: +5.12 V (min = +6.53 V, max = +6.32 V) ALARM VSB: +3.26 V (min = +3.06 V, max = +4.08 V) VBAT: +3.20 V (min = +4.02 V, max = +4.02 V) ALARM in9: +1.61 V (min = +2.04 V, max = +2.04 V) ALARM Case Fan: 0 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 128) CPU Fan: 969 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 8) Aux Fan: 3970 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 2) fan4: 0 RPM (min = 83 RPM, div = 128) ALARM fan5: 1308 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 8) Sys Temp: +39.0°C (high = +123.0°C, hyst = -65.0°C) sensor = thermistor CPU Temp: +29.0°C (high = +80.0°C, hyst = +75.0°C) sensor = diode AUX Temp: +121.5°C (high = +80.0°C, hyst = +75.0°C) ALARM sensor = thermistor cpu0_vid: +1.350 V coretemp-isa-0000 Adapter: ISA adapter Core 0: +60.0°C (high = +84.0°C, crit = +100.0°C) coretemp-isa-0001 Adapter: ISA adapter Core 1: +57.0°C (high = +84.0°C, crit = +100.0°C) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and without: w83627ehf-isa-0290 Adapter: ISA adapter VCore: +1.30 V (min = +0.00 V, max = +1.74 V) in1: +12.30 V (min = +13.46 V, max = +13.46 V) ALARM AVCC: +3.36 V (min = +4.08 V, max = +2.03 V) ALARM 3VCC: +3.34 V (min = +3.92 V, max = +3.95 V) ALARM in4: +1.70 V (min = +1.53 V, max = +2.04 V) in5: +1.59 V (min = +2.04 V, max = +1.02 V) ALARM in6: +5.12 V (min = +6.53 V, max = +6.32 V) ALARM VSB: +3.26 V (min = +3.06 V, max = +4.08 V) VBAT: +3.20 V (min = +4.02 V, max = +4.02 V) ALARM in9: +1.61 V (min = +2.04 V, max = +2.04 V) ALARM Case Fan: 0 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 128) CPU Fan: 986 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 8) Aux Fan: 3970 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 2) fan4: 0 RPM (min = 83 RPM, div = 128) ALARM fan5: 1308 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 8) Sys Temp: +39.0°C (high = +123.0°C, hyst = -65.0°C) sensor = thermistor CPU Temp: +29.0°C (high = +80.0°C, hyst = +75.0°C) sensor = diode AUX Temp: +117.0°C (high = +80.0°C, hyst = +75.0°C) ALARM sensor = thermistor cpu0_vid: +1.375 V coretemp-isa-0000 Adapter: ISA adapter Core 0: +60.0°C (high = +84.0°C, crit = +100.0°C) coretemp-isa-0001 Adapter: ISA adapter Core 1: +58.0°C (high = +84.0°C, crit = +100.0°C) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it's the completely same temperatures - it had no effect on the "correctness" of the output thanks to everyone Regards Mat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
