Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 17 Jan 2015 11:45:18 -0800
From:      Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net>
To:        Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: PowerMac G5 quad-core, CPU A1 DIODE TEMP: 90.8 C (for example): How to handle? [more data]
Message-ID:  <42358897-0AC2-4B35-BE01-1D4EB2CC2F47@dsl-only.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=0-tzB0U2evzU9XNE6oQU-7_WnqmE%2B9pHWnvRTpkh-Tg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <42CF1E40-5BD5-4B00-86E9-C62AEB9B8B93@dsl-only.net> <15A6D627-9DC7-48AF-B133-94980AFCE46A@dsl-only.net> <20150115231129.1b28c8d0@zhabar.attlocal.net> <0631235D-A505-4C37-87D7-6F46A14552AB@dsl-only.net> <20150116233145.6708cc6f@zhabar.attlocal.net> <31331F84-63CC-48B7-81B5-E70A22E88CB7@dsl-only.net> <604BAA0A-FD15-4310-88B2-DFEE9988D1EB@dsl-only.net> <20150117080916.3e321a4f@zhabar.attlocal.net> <CAJ-Vmo=0-tzB0U2evzU9XNE6oQU-7_WnqmE%2B9pHWnvRTpkh-Tg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
While I mentioned forced idle time as a technical possibility I'm not so =
sure that FreeBSD would want to automatically drop performance in order =
to keep a machine running. In my case such would not be enough for me to =
decide to continue to use the problematical quad-core G5. (I doubt that =
it would be a minor amount of idle time that was required to get =E2=80=9C=
make -j 8 buildworld buildkernel" or other such to work reliably on this =
G5.)

I will try something to put the problematical G5 under load under Mac OS =
X 10.5, say 4+ copies of the HINT benchmark running concurrently if I =
still have that around. But I'm not aware of a pre-existing way to see =
the fans speeds, pump speeds, and other such in that context. I may only =
learn if it automatically shuts down or not. For FreeBSD I was fairly =
sure I'd be able to readily find such extra information (and I did).

I'd say that what I reported for "01:45:51 to 02:13:50" was near =
full-throttle over that time and it started at 70.3C. Looks like Justin =
got it programmed with the properties he wanted.


=3D=3D=3D
Mark Millard
markmi@dsl-only.net

On 2015-Jan-17, at 08:35 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

On 17 January 2015 at 08:09, Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> The new algorithm in this patch is supposed to put the fans at full
> throttle around the midpoint, so around 70C they should be at full
> blast.
>=20
> Have you tried the same machine under heavy load with OS X or Linux?
> We can keep adjusting the algorithm, as long as your machine is known
> to be good enough under one of those OSs.  If they also overheat,
> there's nothing we can do, since OS X at least should run fine with
> heavy load, as long as the hardware can handle it.

Can you force introduce halt cycles to compensate for the increasing
rise in temperature?




-adrian

> - Justin
>=20
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 03:38:33 -0800
> Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> wrote:
>=20
>> I've now tested the new patch and strongly expect that the new code
>> is much better but it is not sufficient to keep the temperature down
>> on the problematical quad-core G5 that I've been testing via
>> buildworld. It did last over 30 minutes and there were no 0 rpm
>> figures sampled for this new code.
>>=20
>> Note: it turns out the two sysctl dumps of samples (dev.smu and
>> dev.smusat) are done (as a pair) more like once every 3 to 4 seconds,
>> not once a second. I include timestamps this time.
>>=20
>> The new code ended up keeping the intake and exhaust fans near the
>> 3200 maxrpm for a long time and the pump near the maxrpm 3600 too.
>> But that was not enough for this G5 to keep its cool. It would
>> apparently take giving the CPUs/cores some periodic idle time to cool
>> down in order to keep this G5 cool enough. (Really just cpu a1
>> needing such.)
>>=20
>> Over the interval below (01:45:51 to 02:13:50) no .rpm figure was
>> sampled as < 3100 and no pump.rpm was sampled as < 3400.
>>=20
>> Sat Jan 17 01:45:51 PST 2015
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_intake.rpm: 3131
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_intake.rpm: 3131
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 3127
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_exhaust.rpm: 3143
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_pump.rpm: 3549
>> dev.smusat.0.cpu_a0_diode_temp: 59.4C
>> dev.smusat.0.cpu_a1_diode_temp: 70.3C
>> dev.smusat.1.cpu_b0_diode_temp: 59.1C
>> dev.smusat.1.cpu_b1_diode_temp: 64.8C
>> Sat Jan 17 01:45:54 PST 2015
>> ... Over the below range pump.rpm is sampled as < 3500 only 6 times
>> (each > 3400)... Sat Jan 17 02:01:46 PST 2015
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_intake.rpm: 3197
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_intake.rpm: 3202
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 3200
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_exhaust.rpm: 3198
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_pump.rpm: 3636
>> dev.smusat.0.cpu_a0_diode_temp: 67.6C
>> dev.smusat.0.cpu_a1_diode_temp: 81.6C
>> dev.smusat.1.cpu_b0_diode_temp: 61.0C
>> dev.smusat.1.cpu_b1_diode_temp: 65.6C
>> Sat Jan 17 02:01:50 PST 2015
>> ... The last lines that made it into the file before automatic
>> shutdown were ... Sat Jan 17 02:13:50 PST 2015
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_intake.rpm: 3200
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_intake.rpm: 3199
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 3199
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_exhaust.rpm: 3197
>> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_pump.rpm: 3614
>> dev.smusat.0.cpu_a0_diode_temp: 73.0C
>> dev.smusat.0.cpu_a1_diode_temp: 90.9C
>> dev.smusat.1.cpu_b0_diode_temp: 62.6C
>> dev.smusat.1.cpu_b1_diode_temp: 67.1C
>> Sat Jan 17 02:13:54 PST 2015
>>=20
>> So for the last 12 minutes or so the cpu intakes, exhausts, and pump
>> were going basically full blast. It was not enough for my context but
>> likely would help some other contexts.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42358897-0AC2-4B35-BE01-1D4EB2CC2F47>