Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-kernel (69 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-kernel] kernel & BIOS report (incorrectly?) different current/available speeds for overclocked CPU
  • From: PGNet Dev <pgnet.dev+oskrn@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:56:40 -0700
  • Message-id: <94f2e81e0908022256i361e45dat9fd7a96166869f88@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
jeff,

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Jeff Mahoney<jeffm@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
Follow Ups