[arch-general] high CPU temperature with 2.6.32
Hello, pacman just brought kernel 2.6.32 for my old laptop (P3 500MHz). A strange thing I noticed is that the fan won't go off when CPU is idling like it used to. Using powertop I can see more than 100K wakeups/s (extra_timer_interrupt is first on the list but I think it's irrelevant since it only shows about 100 wakeups), and the CPU is not going into C2 mode at all. Strangely however the cpu is 99% idle, and top doesn't show "system" or "user" cpu usage. Anyone else seeing such behaviour? Thanks in advance, Dimitris
On 04.01.2010 22:07, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
Hello,
pacman just brought kernel 2.6.32 for my old laptop (P3 500MHz). A strange thing I noticed is that the fan won't go off when CPU is idling like it used to. Using powertop I can see more than 100K wakeups/s (extra_timer_interrupt is first on the list but I think it's irrelevant since it only shows about 100 wakeups), and the CPU is not going into C2 mode at all. Strangely however the cpu is 99% idle, and top doesn't show "system" or "user" cpu usage.
Anyone else seeing such behaviour?
Thanks in advance, Dimitris
Do you run acpi-cpufreq?
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Do you run acpi-cpufreq?
No I don't. In fact I don't think the CPU is able to lower its frequency. Dimitris
On Jan 5, 2010 7:05 AM, "Dimitrios Apostolou" <jimis@gmx.net> wrote: On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > > Do you run acpi-cpufreq? No I don't. In fact I don't think the CPU is able to lower its frequency. Dimitris
Hate to state the obvious, because it was my problem. Dropped my laptop from 75C to 50C... cleaning the hairball out of my heatsink. On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:47 AM, daniel robinson <dcntfeller@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 5, 2010 7:05 AM, "Dimitrios Apostolou" <jimis@gmx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > > Do you run acpi-cpufreq? No I don't. In fact I don't think the CPU is able to lower its frequency.
Dimitris
Jim Clark wrote:
Hate to state the obvious, because it was my problem. Dropped my laptop from 75C to 50C... cleaning the hairball out of my heatsink.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:47 AM, daniel robinson <dcntfeller@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 5, 2010 7:05 AM, "Dimitrios Apostolou" <jimis@gmx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > > Do you run acpi-cpufreq? No I don't. In fact I don't think the CPU is able to lower its frequency.
Dimitris
Just make sure you take a paper-clip and open it up and put it through the fan grill to hold the fan stationary before you take a vacuum or shop vac to the air intake/exhaust. You run the risk of scattering or damaging the fan(s) if you just let them freewheel. After a minute or two of suctioning, you should see several lumps of fur on the inside of the grill which can generally be removed easily by rubbing across the grill with your hand, (or) using some duct tape to tease the fluff through, (or) in the worst case using a pair of tweezers and needle to pick the hairball through. And yes, it will completely cure the overtemp shutdowns for a year or two... (this is theoretical of course -- not spoken from experience or anything like that ;-) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
Hello,
pacman just brought kernel 2.6.32 for my old laptop (P3 500MHz). A strange thing I noticed is that the fan won't go off when CPU is idling like it used to. Using powertop I can see more than 100K wakeups/s (extra_timer_interrupt is first on the list but I think it's irrelevant since it only shows about 100 wakeups), and the CPU is not going into C2 mode at all. Strangely however the cpu is 99% idle, and top doesn't show "system" or "user" cpu usage.
FYI this happens when the module "processor" is inserted, whence I get something like "marking tsc as unstable due to halts in idle. Using acpi_pm clocksource". Before that the CPU is idling cool, but from then on I get ~130K wakeups/s and the CPU runs hot. My workaround for the moment is booting with parameter "clocksource=pit".
Anyone else seeing such behaviour?
Thanks in advance, Dimitris
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net> wrote:
Using powertop I can see more than 100K wakeups/s (extra_timer_interrupt is first on the list but I think it's irrelevant since it only shows about 100 wakeups), and the CPU is not going into C2 mode at all. Strangely however the cpu is 99% idle, and top doesn't show "system" or "user" cpu usage.
This sounds bad. Let me get this straight. "Wakeups-from-idle per second" shows 100 000, but no large numbers show up under "Top causes for wakeups"? Can you post the contents of your /proc/interrupts and /proc/timer_stats twice, taken within a few seconds difference? Marti
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net> wrote:
Using powertop I can see more than 100K wakeups/s (extra_timer_interrupt is first on the list but I think it's irrelevant since it only shows about 100 wakeups), and the CPU is not going into C2 mode at all. Strangely however the cpu is 99% idle, and top doesn't show "system" or "user" cpu usage.
This sounds bad. Let me get this straight. "Wakeups-from-idle per second" shows 100 000, but no large numbers show up under "Top causes for wakeups"?
Can you post the contents of your /proc/interrupts and /proc/timer_stats twice, taken within a few seconds difference?
cat /proc/timer_stats /proc/interrupts && echo && echo && sleep 2 && cat \ /proc/timer_stats /proc/interrupts Timer Stats Version: v0.2 Sample period: 0.000 s 0 total events CPU0 0: 79154 XT-PIC-XT timer 1: 1621 XT-PIC-XT i8042 2: 0 XT-PIC-XT cascade 3: 2 XT-PIC-XT 4: 3 XT-PIC-XT 5: 6 XT-PIC-XT au8810 6: 5 XT-PIC-XT floppy 7: 0 XT-PIC-XT parport0 8: 4 XT-PIC-XT rtc0 9: 4 XT-PIC-XT acpi 10: 2 XT-PIC-XT 11: 45870 XT-PIC-XT yenta, yenta, uhci_hcd:usb1 12: 82960 XT-PIC-XT i8042 14: 15309 XT-PIC-XT ata_piix 15: 0 XT-PIC-XT ata_piix NMI: 0 Non-maskable interrupts LOC: 0 Local timer interrupts SPU: 0 Spurious interrupts PMI: 0 Performance monitoring interrupts PND: 0 Performance pending work RES: 0 Rescheduling interrupts CAL: 0 Function call interrupts TLB: 0 TLB shootdowns TRM: 0 Thermal event interrupts THR: 0 Threshold APIC interrupts MCE: 0 Machine check exceptions MCP: 4 Machine check polls ERR: 0 MIS: 0 Timer Stats Version: v0.2 Sample period: 0.000 s 0 total events CPU0 0: 79271 XT-PIC-XT timer 1: 1622 XT-PIC-XT i8042 2: 0 XT-PIC-XT cascade 3: 2 XT-PIC-XT 4: 3 XT-PIC-XT 5: 6 XT-PIC-XT au8810 6: 5 XT-PIC-XT floppy 7: 0 XT-PIC-XT parport0 8: 4 XT-PIC-XT rtc0 9: 4 XT-PIC-XT acpi 10: 2 XT-PIC-XT 11: 45914 XT-PIC-XT yenta, yenta, uhci_hcd:usb1 12: 82960 XT-PIC-XT i8042 14: 15330 XT-PIC-XT ata_piix 15: 0 XT-PIC-XT ata_piix NMI: 0 Non-maskable interrupts LOC: 0 Local timer interrupts SPU: 0 Spurious interrupts PMI: 0 Performance monitoring interrupts PND: 0 Performance pending work RES: 0 Rescheduling interrupts CAL: 0 Function call interrupts TLB: 0 TLB shootdowns TRM: 0 Thermal event interrupts THR: 0 Threshold APIC interrupts MCE: 0 Machine check exceptions MCP: 4 Machine check polls ERR: 0 MIS: 0 I have already compiled a minimal 2.6.31 and a 2.6.32 kernel and the problem seems to be a regression introduced in the former. So I'm trying to find time for a git bisection... Any other ideas? Dimitris
Marti
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net> wrote:
Timer Stats Version: v0.2 Sample period: 0.000 s 0 total events
Huh? Something's broken with your /proc/timer_stats. Either that, or some application is polling the file at an insane rate. Were you running powertop in the background at this time? Nothing suspicious in your /proc/interrupts -- I assume the 'processor' module was still loaded at the time you took these samples?
I have already compiled a minimal 2.6.31 and a 2.6.32 kernel and the problem seems to be a regression introduced in the former. So I'm trying to find time for a git bisection... Any other ideas?
You can contact people responsible for the 'processor' module. Linux get_maintainer.pl lists these emails for drivers/acpi/processor_core.c: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com> linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Yeah, feel free to send an email to all recipients, that's how people usually communicate on LKML) Marti
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net> wrote:
Timer Stats Version: v0.2 Sample period: 0.000 s 0 total events
Huh? Something's broken with your /proc/timer_stats. Either that, or some application is polling the file at an insane rate. Were you running powertop in the background at this time?
No I wasn't running anything in the background, really stange indeed...
Nothing suspicious in your /proc/interrupts -- I assume the 'processor' module was still loaded at the time you took these samples?
right
I have already compiled a minimal 2.6.31 and a 2.6.32 kernel and the problem seems to be a regression introduced in the former. So I'm trying to find time for a git bisection... Any other ideas?
You can contact people responsible for the 'processor' module. Linux get_maintainer.pl lists these emails for drivers/acpi/processor_core.c:
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com> linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
(Yeah, feel free to send an email to all recipients, that's how people usually communicate on LKML)
Thanks for the tips, they are very useful! Dimitris
Marti
participants (6)
-
daniel robinson
-
David C. Rankin
-
Dimitrios Apostolou
-
Jim Clark
-
Marti Raudsepp
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase