From nobody Thu Jul 18 16:57:27 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4WPzWb48fKz5RkhC for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:57:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane-mx.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4WPzWZ28yFz4d50 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:57:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane-mx.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-questions@m.gmane-mx.org designates 116.202.254.214 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-questions@m.gmane-mx.org Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sUURm-0006M2-PZ for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 18:57:38 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Anton Shepelev Subject: Re: Cannot seem to throttle individual cores with hwpstate_intel Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:57:27 +0300 Message-ID: <20240718195727.d4f457c37c7e168b62861d4a@gmail.com> References: <20240716013741.17158bb56952618f8d748515@gmail.com> List-Id: User questions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32) X-Spamd-Bar: + X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.87 / 15.00]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[1.000]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(1.00)[0.998]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.83)[-0.827]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[antontxt@gmail.com,freebsd-questions@m.gmane-mx.org]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[gmail.com : SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM,none]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.10)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:116.202.0.0/16, country:DE]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[antontxt@gmail.com,freebsd-questions@m.gmane-mx.org]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4WPzWZ28yFz4d50 Alexey Vyskubov: > this is not how it works for me on i3-12100F (14.1-p2): > > for cpu in $(seq 0 7); do sysctl dev.hwpstate_intel.$cpu.epp; sysctl dev.cpu.$cpu.freq; done > dev.hwpstate_intel.0.epp: 50 > dev.cpu.0.freq: 1450 > dev.hwpstate_intel.1.epp: 50 > dev.cpu.1.freq: 1165 > dev.hwpstate_intel.2.epp: 50 > dev.cpu.2.freq: 1248 > dev.hwpstate_intel.3.epp: 50 > dev.cpu.3.freq: 1152 > dev.hwpstate_intel.4.epp: 50 > dev.cpu.4.freq: 799 > dev.hwpstate_intel.5.epp: 50 > dev.cpu.5.freq: 799 > dev.hwpstate_intel.6.epp: 50 > dev.cpu.6.freq: 799 > dev.hwpstate_intel.7.epp: 100 > dev.cpu.7.freq: 799 Thank you for the test, Alexey. In your case, the per-core settings seem to take at least some effect. Since the load balancer seems to prioritise cores with lower indices, I wonder what the same test would show if core 0 instead of core 7 had an .epp of 100. Under what kind of load did you perform your test, and does load affect the frequencies?