On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 13:03 -0400, lmsensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:19:24 +0100, lmsensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > Most of /proc/acpi has been deprecated over time in favor of equivalent > > (but often more generic) sysfs attributes. For > > example /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THRM/temperature would now > > be /sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/temp. If your kernel had > > CONFIG_THERMAL_HWMON enabled, you would also see this thermal zone in > > the output of "sensors". > > I don't have anything of note in /sys/class/thermal so I'll look at what > I might be missing from the newer acpi configs. > > > I think you're looking at the numbers in the wrong way. It's not > > sensors or grep or anything causing a 10°C increase in temperature. > > It's the CPU being nicely designed with efficient low-power C-states > > which make it possible to save 10°C in idle state. > > Yes and no. Even when the CPU was 'idle' and cooling down from the max > of 57 to 46-ish, I was able to reliably increase the CPU temps by 3+ > degC by running sensors twice and by 8-10 degC by running sensors 200 > times which, in a loop. And running it 200 times on a 1.8GHz cpu takes > 3 seconds. Nothing takes 3 seconds. > > Yes, I realize that time is required to setup the execution environment > for sensors and it relies on the kernel and bus wait times, etc etc > etc... But... > > Nothing takes 3 seconds. :) Feel free to improve it ;). I get: with Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz: real 0m1.814s user 0m0.408s sys 0m1.292s with Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz: real 0m5.634s user 0m0.200s sys 0m2.380s For the latter, if I execute "sensors coretemp-isa-0000" instead of "sensors" in the loop, the results are: real 0m1.295s user 0m0.160s sys 0m0.632s The difference is that "sensors" also probes acpitz-virtual-0 on my laptop (Core 2 Duo). Apparently that is the time and CPU hog in my case. You might want to check the sensors probed and reported in your case, then look into those drivers and make them more efficient. I am sure we would all appreciate that ... Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
