Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:17:20 +0200 From: Arthur van der Peijl <aavanderpeijl@gmail.com> To: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ACPI problems op ASrock Message-ID: <AC265A92-ABE2-442B-9959-EC8F61DFC2C6@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1s1akH6Wva-1eyYt3AZWRvvE%2BiSLtydDdfc01OwwOaZwg@mail.gmail.com> References: <49E6B533-4457-4583-82A2-9940C291AB51@gmail.com> <CAN6yY1s1akH6Wva-1eyYt3AZWRvvE%2BiSLtydDdfc01OwwOaZwg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you for assistance: powerd must clearly not be my focus: the CPU =
stays high and thus cannot go into idle mode.
I worked thought the document which uncovers that most settings are =
already available in my system:
[root@zfsguru /home/ssh]# cat /etc/rc.conf | grep cx_
performance_cx_lowest=3D"Cmax"
economy_cx_lowest=3D"Cmax"
=20
No need to change performance_cx_lowest as I just have a Pentium G3220 =
running.
[root@zfsguru /home/ssh]# cat /boot/loader.conf | grep hint.
hint.p4tcc.0.disabled=3D"1"
hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled=3D"1"
Tried to change lowest level on running system:=20
[root@zfsguru /home/ssh]# sysctl dev.cpu.0.cx_lowest=3DC8
dev.cpu.0.cx_lowest: C8 -> C8
We're already there. The document described some other setting which =
could be read:
[root@zfsguru /home/ssh]# sysctl dev.cpu | grep cx
dev.cpu.1.cx_usage: 100.00% last 5us
dev.cpu.1.cx_lowest: C8
dev.cpu.1.cx_supported: C1/1/1
dev.cpu.0.cx_usage: 100.00% 0.00% last 4us
dev.cpu.0.cx_lowest: C8
dev.cpu.0.cx_supported: C1/1/1 C2/2/117
I don't inderstand this. 100% CPU is my main issue, created by =
{acpi_task} in the kernal.
However -> CPU1 supports different states as CPU0? Or is this a summary =
of last states?
You last remark about frequencies:
[root@zfsguru /home/ssh]# sysctl dev.cpu | grep freq
dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 3000/53000 2900/50301 2700/46082 2600/43525 =
2400/39557 2300/37137 2100/33398 2000/31112 1800/27610 1700/25455 =
1500/22171 1400/20144 1200/17084 1100/15181 900/12329 800/10550
dev.cpu.0.freq: 3000
As I understand there could be better effective power management be =
available. Should that resolve my high CPU issue? Or is it caused by bad =
Asrock BIOS tables?=20
As only my high CPU generating {acpi_task} stops, I'll get a better - =
more power effective - system using less Watts.
Regards,
Arthur
Op 26 sep. 2015, om 01:09 heeft Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> het =
volgende geschreven:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Arthur van der Peijl =
<aavanderpeijl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>=20
> In May I started with 10.0-Release on an ASrock E3C224D4I-14S.
> The system had low power consumption and powerd(8) did a good job =
lowering the CPU frequency.
>=20
> However starting from 10.1 (and now 10.2-release) I keep getting high =
CPU consumption due to a process called {acpi task}.
>=20
> BIOS upgrades or changes didn't help. Disabling ACPI results in system =
halt at startup.
> Does anybody have an idea to solve this? It seems that the ACPI =
process in FreeBSD is changed, which my motherboard cannot handle (or =
the mb has wrong ACPI tables?).
>=20
> top -SH output:
> ----
> last pid: 41184; load averages: 1.71, 1.75, 1.64 =
up 8+14:05:40 10:00:16
> 691 processes: 7 running, 663 sleeping, 21 waiting
> CPU: 0.8% user, 0.0% nice, 62.7% system, 0.0% interrupt, 36.5% idle
> Mem: 90M Active, 4310M Inact, 11G Wired, 18M Cache, 144K Buf, 497M =
Free
> ARC: 9991M Total, 1364M MFU, 7997M MRU, 4841K Anon, 36M Header, 588M =
Other
> Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free
>=20
> PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU =
COMMAND
> 11 root 155 ki31 0K 32K RUN 1 122.7H 62.99% =
idle{idle: cpu1}
> 0 root 8 0 0K 7088K RUN 1 73.2H 36.87% =
kernel{acpi_task_1}
> 0 root 8 0 0K 7088K RUN 0 73.3H 36.18% =
kernel{acpi_task_0}
> 0 root 8 0 0K 7088K RUN 0 73.2H 35.60% =
kernel{acpi_task_2}
> 11 root 155 ki31 0K 32K RUN 0 67.6H 34.08% =
idle{idle: cpu0}
> 1024 mysql 20 0 266M 69624K RUN 1 0:37 0.10% =
mysqld{mysqld}
> 12 root -60 - 0K 336K WAIT 0 11:18 0.00% =
intr{swi4: clock}
> 1149 root 20 0 500M 90016K sbwait 0 6:15 0.00% =
mongod{mongod}
> 1149 root 20 0 500M 90016K sbwait 1 6:13 0.00% =
mongod{mongod}
> 1149 root 20 0 500M 90016K sbwait 0 6:12 0.00% =
mongod{mongod}
> 687 root 20 0 4560M 363M uwait 1 5:31 0.00% =
java{java}
> ----
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Arthur
>=20
> I have not noted this exact behavior, so this MIGHT not work, but the =
subject of power management seems to keep coming up. For a good =
discussion of the subject, read mav@'s FreeBSD wiki article on the =
subject. It's slightly (but only slightly) dated.
>=20
> To fix your immediate issue, try adding the following to /etc/rc.conf:
> performance_cx_lowest=3D"Cmax"
> economy_cx_lowest=3D"Cmax"
>=20
> NOTE: In the case of very large multiprocessor systems with 32 or more =
CPUs, you might get a nasty performance hit and should instead use:
> performance_cx_lowest=3D"C2"
> economy_cx_lowest=3D"Cmax"
>=20
> Please DON'T enable TCC and/or throttling and C-states together! On =
some processors this can cause deadlocks. Intel never expected =
TCC/throttling to be used the way FreeBSD did.
>=20
> For desktop and laptop use, "Cmax" is always the way to go. It really, =
really reduces power consumption.
>=20
> Finally, if this fails, you can restore TCC by adding =
"hint.acpi_p4tcc.0.disabled=3D0" to /boot/loader.conf, but never combine =
this with setting either cx_lowest value in rc.conf. This change will =
require a reboot.
>=20
> You can change this on a running system with "sysctl =
dev.cpu.0.cx_lowest=3DC8" to enable C-states or C1 to disable them. No =
need to re-boot.
>=20
> Read on for more gory details. Note that I am at least partly =
responsible for the long-term brokenness of FreeBSD power management as =
I did laboratory testing of it when I was at Lawrence Berkeley Lab, but =
did not really understand the differences between the test-bed and the =
real world.=20
>=20
> Throttling is not and never has been a tool for power management. It =
was created by Intel as a method of thermal management and the =
implementation was manual. That is, some external process had to =
activate it. It was replaced in 2000 by TCC (Thermal Control Circuit) =
which did the exact same thing, but was entirely internal to the =
processor and was thus consistent and uniformly implemented. Throttling =
was still present for compatibility, but is really, really obsolete.
>=20
> Both throttling and TCC so the same thing. They reduce the heat =
generated by skipping 'N' of every 8 clock cycles. They don't actually =
change the clock speed. EST, which actually does slow the clock as well =
as reducing the core voltage should still provide a a few clock speeds. =
The number is dependent on the particular CPU, but usually between 3 and =
8. It does save power, but not very effectively.
>=20
> Unfortunately, many thought that throttling was a way to do power =
management. In fact, except in a few real-time edge cases, it is totally =
ineffective for that purpose.
>=20
> The problem you are having is probably that enabling the newer, really =
effective power management tool was not committed to 10.2 when TCC was =
disabled. It is now in HEAD and I am hoping to see it in 10.3 as well as =
11. (I'm not a committer, so I only can go on what I've been told by the =
one who committed disabling TCC.)
>=20
> C-states do not change the clock speed. You will only have a small set =
of frequencies reported as those will be REAL clock speeds from EST, not =
the synthetic ones shown when using throttling/TCC, so the number of =
them shown by default on 10.2 will be 1/8th of when was shown by prior =
versions.
>=20
> I you do need to do this, please let us know. That should not be =
happening!
>=20
> I am now working (slowly) on a power management section of the =
handbook which will do a better job of explaining the issues.
> --
> Kevin Oberman, Part time goatherd and retired Network Engineer
>=20
>=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AC265A92-ABE2-442B-9959-EC8F61DFC2C6>