On 03/08/2014 04:10 PM, Manuel Krause wrote:
On 2014-03-08 16:59, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 03/08/2014 03:08 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:52:30 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:04:29PM +0100, Manuel Krause wrote:
Hi, and thanks for the quick response!
No special fancy "fan control policy". 'fancontrol' isn't up or
running.
Vanilla kernels 3.11.* and 3.12.* had been working on here
without
any extra work.
--
# sensors
acpitz-virtual-0
Adapter: Virtual device
temp1: +71.0°C (crit = +256.0°C)
temp2: +69.0°C (crit = +110.0°C)
temp3: +52.0°C (crit = +105.0°C)
temp4: +25.0°C (crit = +110.0°C)
temp5: +58.0°C (crit = +110.0°C)
coretemp-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
Core 0: +62.0°C (high = +105.0°C, crit = +105.0°C)
Core 1: +60.0°C (high = +105.0°C, crit = +105.0°C)
--
My notebook (HP/Compaq 6730b) does not have a seperate fan
sensor.
This is with 3.12.13 with my normal workload.
Please, trust my above mentionned values of 94 °C vs. 74°C as I
don't like to boot 3.13.6 anymore, to avoid harm to the
notebook's
casing.
Understood. Unfortunately, we'll need to get information
from the new kernel to be able to track down the problem.
Indeed. Not only the run-time temperatures, but also the high
and crit
limits.
But I'd do to test any improvement-patch.
So far I have no idea what is going on. I don't see anything
in the
drivers providing above data that would explain the behavior,
but I might be missing something.
Looks like a regression in the acpi subsystem or in power
management,
not hwmon. Hwmon is merely reporting the temperatures, it's not
responsible for the actual temperatures.
I would agree. I don't think we have enough information to be sure,
though. There might be some unintended interaction or interference.
gpu is a good hint ... for example, look at commit b9ed919f1c8
(drm/nouveau/drm/pm: remove everything except the hwmon interfaces
to THERM). nouveau does export pwm and fan control information,
so any change in that code may have unintended side effects.
Similar, I don't know how ec39f64bba (drm/radeon/dpm: Convert to
use devm_hwmon_register_with_groups) could have the observed impact,
as it is purely passive, but I prefer to be rather safe than sorry.
This problem has now been submitted into bugzilla as
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71711.
Guenter
Sorry, for beeing late, had to search for/accumulate much info for you...
I hope, you like me to put it into one answer to you all CCing you.
My GFX is a GM45 Intel (mobile), shared memory, running the opensource Mesa drivers/extensions.
kernel-module: i915
According to the output of 'cpupower': I have
CPUidle driver: acpi_idle
CPUidle governor: menu
CPUfreq:
driver: acpi-cpufreq
available cpufreq governors: ondemand, performance
-
And "ondemand" is running.
--
# sensors
acpitz-virtual-0
Adapter: Virtual device
temp1: +41.0°C (crit = +256.0°C)
temp2: +92.0°C (crit = +110.0°C)
temp3: +71.0°C (crit = +105.0°C)
temp4: +26.5°C (crit = +110.0°C)
temp5: +25.0°C (crit = +110.0°C)
coretemp-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
Core 0: +86.0°C (high = +105.0°C, crit = +105.0°C)
Core 1: +84.0°C (high = +105.0°C, crit = +105.0°C)
FROM a critical "smelly" situation today, kernel-compilation, fan @100%.
--
Additional findings:
Identification from bootup ACPI initialisation vs. sensors:
temp1 = DTSZ
temp2 = CPUZ --> triggering Cooling in 3.12.13 if > 74°C
temp3 = SKNZ
temp4 = BATZ "Battery Zone" always calm ~ +6°C of ambient T
temp5 = FDTZ --- in 3.12.13 a representation of the cooling-fan (25 - 45 - 58 - max?)
Core 0 & Core 1 are the internal CPU T sensors.
With the 3.13.x (.5+) kernels the first gatherered cooling settings from bootup do stay forever. Means, rebooting a hot system will get a FDTZ @45°C+ and won't make any problems, as it does cool enough (even for kernel compiling on here). If it gets 25°C @bootup the system goes into emergency cooling somewhen. Same is with a suspend/resume.
Kernel 3.12.13 adjusts the cooling on it's own, but appropriately.
Hi Manuel,
thanks a lot for the additional information.
I added this exchange to bugzilla (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71711).
This is pretty much all I can do at this point; I have no idea what
is going on. Some change in ACPI would be my guess, but I did not see
anything catching my eye when looking through the ACPI code.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
