From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755187AbYEYPEN (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2008 11:04:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753738AbYEYPD6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2008 11:03:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52785 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753573AbYEYPD5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2008 11:03:57 -0400 Subject: Re: cpufreq limits avilable frequencies to 800MHz on git kernel From: Thomas Renninger Reply-To: trenn@suse.de To: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Andrew Morton , gnorton@novell.com, miguel@novell.com In-Reply-To: <200805251136.24313.arekm@maven.pl> References: <200805231944.57320.arekm@maven.pl> <20080523182507.29a2b10c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200805251136.24313.arekm@maven.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 17:03:55 +0200 Message-Id: <1211727835.3422.36.camel@linux-2bdv.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 11:36 +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > On Saturday 24 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 23 May 2008 19:44:57 +0200 Arkadiusz Miskiewicz > wrote: > > > thinkpad z60m, Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 2.00GHz. kernel from git > > > from 1-2 days ago. > > > > > > Unfortunately it seems that suspend to ram/resume causes frequency > > > to be limited to 800MHz only. I can't set it to 2GHz again :-/ > > > > > > scaling_max_freq is then 800000 and cannot be changed. > > > > > > reboot and the problem disappears until new suspend/resume cycle. > > > > > > cpufreq stuff is driven by acpi-cpufreq > > > > > > $ cpufreq-info > > > cpufrequtils 002: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2006 > > > Report errors and bugs to linux@brodo.de, please. > > > analyzing CPU 0: > > > driver: acpi-cpufreq > > > CPUs which need to switch frequency at the same time: 0 > > > hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.00 GHz > > > available frequency steps: 2.00 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.33 GHz, 1.07 GHz, 800 > > > MHz available cpufreq governors: powersave, userspace, ondemand, > > > performance current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 800 > > > MHz. The governor "performance" may decide which speed to use within this > > > range. > > > current CPU frequency is 800 MHz. > > > > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/affected_cpus:0 > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq:800000 > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_max_freq:2000000 > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_min_freq:800000 > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/related_cpus:0 > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies:200000 > > >0 1600000 1333000 1066000 800000 > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_governors:powersav > > >e userspace ondemand performance > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000 > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_driver:acpi-cpufreq > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor:performance > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq:800000 > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq:800000 > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_setspeed: > > > > Thanks. Is this a newly-occurring bug or did earlier kernels do this also? > > > > If it was newly added, do you know in which kernel version we might > > have added it? > > I wasn't able to reproduce the problem on final 2.6.24 but was able to > reproduce on final 2.6.25. Problem introduced somewhere between it seems. > > Note that 2-3 suspend to ram/resume cycles is needed to get into the problem. Sounds related to: [Bug 374099] T61p speedstep problems (ondemand scheduler) https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=374099 Miguel speaks from "good boots" and "bad boots". Could you check whether the OS thinks it is too hot. I described some basics how to monitor temperature and cpufreq (if passive cooling kicks in) here: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=387702#c13 Hmm, it may just have been fixed by this one: commit e56a727b023d40d1adf660168883f30f2e6abe0a Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi Date: Mon Apr 28 15:13:43 2008 -0400 Miguel, Geoff: This is already in 11.0 for some time and in 10.3 for some days. Thomas