![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/99e43487e2905e0b50202a1ef8098e19.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
jeff, On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Jeff Mahoney<jeffm@suse.com> wrote:
the problem exists with any/all speeds above the 'stock' 2.8 GHz .... if, given the responses above and below you're actually interested in more data, i can provide coremark benchmarks in both cases showing virtually identical results in both cases. i.e., despite the OS's report that the cpu speed is "2.8GHz", it's actually still at the BIOS-reported 3.7 GHZ.
Yes, that's what I consider to be the bug here. If it's running at 3.7 GHz and performing at 3.7 GHz, that's important.
here's the salient, supporting info ... running COREMARK (http://coremark.org) benchmark, cd /usr/local/src/coremark_v1.0/ make clean make XCFLAGS="-DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD" REBUILD=1 ITERATIONS=1000000 in each of three cases, (1) Asus' "Cool n Quiet" OFF, CPU OC'd to 3.7 GHz, OS reports 3.7 GHz (2) Asus' "Cool n Quiet" ON, CPU OC'd to 3.7 GHz, OS reports 2.8 GHz (3) Asus' "Cool n Quiet" ON, CPU @ stock 2.8 GHz, OS reports 2.8 GHz note, in particular, the "Iterations/sec" in the data below, are (1) 46521.906002 (2) 46419.329009 (3) 34996.544091 clearly, (1) & (2) are about the same. asuming the stock data, (3) is correct for 2.8Ghz, and that (3) x 1.33 ~= 46544, sure seems like (2) is -- in fact -- misreported by the OS. (1) cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz cpu MHz : 3724.163 cpu MHz : 3724.163 cpu MHz : 3724.163 cpu MHz : 3724.163 cat coremark_v1.0/run{1,2}.log ------------------------------------ 2K performance run parameters for coremark. CoreMark Size : 666 Total ticks : 85981 Total time (secs): 85.981000 Iterations/Sec : 46521.906002 Iterations : 4000000 Compiler version : GCC4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] Compiler flags : -O2 -DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD -DPERFORMANCE_RUN=1 -lrt Parallel PThreads : 4 ... Correct operation validated. See readme.txt for run and reporting rules. CoreMark 1.0 : 46521.906002 / GCC4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] -O2 -DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD -DPERFORMANCE_RUN=1 -lrt / Heap / 4:PThreads 2K validation run parameters for coremark. CoreMark Size : 666 Total ticks : 112348 Total time (secs): 112.348000 Iterations/Sec : 35603.660056 Iterations : 4000000 Compiler version : GCC4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] Compiler flags : -O2 -DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD -DVALIDATION_RUN=1 -lrt Parallel PThreads : 4 ... ------------------------------------ (2) 3.8GHz COOL-n-QUIET ENABLED cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz cpu MHz : 2800.000 cpu MHz : 2800.000 cpu MHz : 2800.000 cpu MHz : 2800.000 cd /usr/local/src/coremark_v1.0/ rm run{1,2}.log make clean make XCFLAGS="-DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD" REBUILD=1 ITERATIONS=1000000 cat coremark_v1.0/run{1,2}.log ------------------------------------ 2K performance run parameters for coremark. CoreMark Size : 666 Total ticks : 86171 Total time (secs): 86.171000 Iterations/Sec : 46419.329009 Iterations : 4000000 Compiler version : GCC4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] Compiler flags : -O2 -DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD -DPERFORMANCE_RUN=1 -lrt Parallel PThreads : 4 ... Correct operation validated. See readme.txt for run and reporting rules. CoreMark 1.0 : 46419.329009 / GCC4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] -O2 -DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD -DPERFORMANCE_RUN=1 -lrt / Heap / 4:PThreads 2K validation run parameters for coremark. CoreMark Size : 666 Total ticks : 102823 Total time (secs): 102.823000 Iterations/Sec : 38901.802126 Iterations : 4000000 Compiler version : GCC4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] Compiler flags : -O2 -DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD -DVALIDATION_RUN=1 -lrt Parallel PThreads : 4 ... ------------------------------------ (3) "STOCK" 2.8GHz COOL-n-QUIET ENABLED cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz cpu MHz : 2800.000 cpu MHz : 2800.000 cpu MHz : 2800.000 cpu MHz : 2800.000 cd /usr/local/src/coremark_v1.0/ rm run{1,2}.log make clean make XCFLAGS="-DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD" REBUILD=1 ITERATIONS=1000000 cat coremark_v1.0/run{1,2}.log ------------------------------------ 2K performance run parameters for coremark. CoreMark Size : 666 Total ticks : 114297 Total time (secs): 114.297000 Iterations/Sec : 34996.544091 Iterations : 4000000 Compiler version : GCC4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] Compiler flags : -O2 -DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD -DPERFORMANCE_RUN=1 -lrt Parallel PThreads : 4 ... CoreMark 1.0 : 34996.544091 / GCC4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] -O2 -DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD -DPERFORMANCE_RUN=1 -lrt / Heap / 4:PThreads 2K validation run parameters for coremark. CoreMark Size : 666 Total ticks : 113871 Total time (secs): 113.871000 Iterations/Sec : 35127.468802 Iterations : 4000000 Compiler version : GCC4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] Compiler flags : -O2 -DMULTITHREAD=4 -DUSE_PTHREAD -DVALIDATION_RUN=1 -lrt Parallel PThreads : 4 ... ------------------------------------
Overclocking is a sensitive topic. It can introduce stability problems that are reported as normal bugs when they are most definitely not. After you see a bunch of them, it's easy to get a little jumpy. Don't take it personally.
I appreciate your candor. But to be honest, nothing WAS reported as a bug here. I asked succinctly and politely *here*, on the community list, if it is, or is not. Before filing a bug. For _exactly_ the purpose of NOT reporting a bug if it is not. As for taking it personally -- sorry, I do take rudeness personally. Don't you?
A stable email address doesn't mean you're not anonymous. Communities are built on trust. In the kernel community, we sign off code patches with our names and email addresses. I don't think it's too much to ask for reporters to do the same. If you're not submitting code, I don't care if you use a pseudonym. I want to be able to be able to say "Hi" at the beginning of an email and have it be an actual name. If you do submit code and use a pseudonym then you're definitely not part of the community.
(1) i've submitted dozens of bugs, using my email address above -- with which i'm registered at Novell -- and have stuck around to work through them with the developers. on list, on bugzilla, on irc, on phone, and face to face. iirc, you have responded to at least a couple of them. (2) as for wanting to "say hi" at the beginning of an email, fine. apart from the fact that you and i have _personally_ exchanged email off list a number of times -- what you _want_ deserves no more or less weight than what i want, which is to manage my communication in a way that works for me. neither case justifies 'jumpy' or 'rude'. (3) where have i submitted any code? (4) if you're going to "ask (or require) *reporters*" to only use their names in/on public forums, then you might actually announce that as policy somewhere, enforce it @Novell/Suse forums, lists, bugizlla, etc and try to do that before making presumptions.
so overclocking of any kind in UNsupported by *suse and will be ignored? that'll be news to quite a few folks, i'd presume ...
If you're operating outside of parameters that the hardware vendors define, absolutely!
if you choose not to support ANY overclocking of ANY hardware because it's not the "official" spec, well ... kind of makes you wonder what AMD annd ASUS are thinking actually building hardware & software to make overclocking beyond 'stock', out of the box params possible. not worth the argument to me. i politely asked a question. and diligently offered what info i could. if you don't want to hear it -- fine. your product's loss, ultimately. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+help@opensuse.org