linux-kernel - Re: cpufreq doesn't seem to work in Intel Q9300

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080812190302.GA26751@isilmar.linta.de>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:03:02 +0200
From:	Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, S K <nospamnoham@...il.com>,
	Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@...el.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpufreq doesn't seem to work in Intel Q9300

Hi Arjan,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 04:58:16PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 07:11:28AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > 1) when the cpu is idle (as in "idle loop C states/hlt"; p4_clockmod
> > > doesn't mean anything.. the clock is stopped not just skipped.
> > > 2) when the cpu is executing code (eg non-idle), it takes more power
> > > for a unit of time than it takes when it's idle
> > 
> > This statement might be true, but might also be wrong:
> > 	a) on systems where only C1 is exported, p4-clockmod most
> > often equals the state the CPU is in when in C1[*], 
> 
> that's.. not entirely true btw.

well, the spec isn't really clear about this. It says (IA32 Intel
Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 3, section 13.14.3) that
P6 family processors did this using STPCLK#. And STPCLK# was also used by the
chipset to force the CPU to enter C2, IIRC.
Do P4s only do an C1-equivalent (or even less than that) now, as they do the
thermal throttling internally instead of externally using STPCLK#?

> >so we're in a 
> > 	   win-win, or lose-lose situation.
> 
> even if it were EXACTLY identical (which it isn't).. you would be at
> BEST a tie... not a savings. so it's lose-lose or tie-tie, but never win

If it's C2-equivalent vs. C1, it's a win. So throttling would be a win from
this perspective on a only C1-capable PIII, but not on a P4? Is that what
you're trying to hint at here?

To summarize:

(1) p6 family processors use STPCLK# initiated by the chipset for thermal
    throttling.
(2) STPCLK# is also used by the chipset to make the CPU enter C2.
(3) p4-clockmod uses the STPCLK#-equivalent in p4 CPUs.
(4) Therefore, it is as effective as STPCLK#, and as effective as C2.
(5) STPCLK#/C2 has higher energy savings than hlt/C1.
(6) therefore, p4-clockmod might make sense on systems which only export C1
    as an idle state.

Where's my mistake?

Thanks,
	Dominik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/