[SOLVED]No "Ondemand" governor on Intel Celeron N3060

Getting your soundcard to work, using Debian on non-i386 hardware, etc

[SOLVED]No "Ondemand" governor on Intel Celeron N3060

Postby VentGrey » 2017-07-10 23:38

The tilte is pretty much self-explainatory, I tried "messing" with cpu scaling and I saw a curious governor "ondemand" which basically Dynamically increases / decreases CPU clock speed based on system load. Problem is when I try to see which governors I have available on my system the output is rather...disappointing:
Code: Select all
 available cpufreq governors: performance, powersave


I tried googling for a solution first I came across this forum https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=40539 and I saw some red words that somehow caught my attention:
The Intel Celeron does not support speedstep.
So I googled my processor model to see if it was in fact true...BUT! according to Intel my processor DOES support speedstep.

https://ark.intel.com/en/products/91832/Intel-Celeron-Processor-N3060-2M-Cache-up-to-2_48-GHz
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology -----Yes
:shock:

If it helps this is the
Code: Select all
cpufreq-info
output:

Code: Select all
Vent@BunnyDebian:~$ cpufreq-info
cpufrequtils 008: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009
Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, please.
analyzing CPU 0:
  driver: intel_pstate
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
  maximum transition latency: 0.97 ms.
  hardware limits: 480 MHz - 2.48 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: performance, powersave
  current policy: frequency should be within 480 MHz and 2.48 GHz.
                  The governor "powersave" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.64 GHz.
analyzing CPU 1:
  driver: intel_pstate
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1
  maximum transition latency: 0.97 ms.
  hardware limits: 480 MHz - 2.48 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: performance, powersave
  current policy: frequency should be within 480 MHz and 2.48 GHz.
                  The governor "powersave" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.80 GHz.


It may be a missing package, something I haven't understood yet, I know I'm doing something wrong I just can't point my finger to it, :?:
Last edited by VentGrey on 2017-07-12 00:55, edited 2 times in total.
“I felt myself on the edge of the world; peering over the rim into a fathomless chaos of eternal night.”
― H.P. Lovecraft after trying Debian SidImage
User avatar
VentGrey
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 2016-04-26 23:57
Location: /dev/friends

Re: No "Ondemand" governor on Intel Celeron N3060

Postby stevepusser » 2017-07-11 01:28

No doubt this is due to the kernel you are using using the p-state power management for your fairly recent Intel processor. What you see is normal when it's using p-state.

If you want to use the cpufreq power management you're thinking of, you can add
Code: Select all
intel_pstate=disable 


to the kernel boot commands, and it should fall back to cpufreq. I really can't see much, if any, difference in power use between the two on my Skylake processor when I've tried the switch, though.
The MX Linux repositories: Backports galore! If we don't have something, just ask and we'll try--we like challenges. New packages: AzPainter 2.0.6, Pale Moon 27.4.1, Liquorix kernel 4.11-9, mpv 0.26.0, Kodi 17.3, 0ad 0.0.22, Mesa 13.0.6
User avatar
stevepusser
 
Posts: 8507
Joined: 2009-10-06 05:53

Re: No "Ondemand" governor on Intel Celeron N3060

Postby VentGrey » 2017-07-12 00:55

Just added the line as a boot parameter and now I can enjoy the ondemand governor.
Well it seems that the trick worked pretty much, thanks for replying :mrgreen:
“I felt myself on the edge of the world; peering over the rim into a fathomless chaos of eternal night.”
― H.P. Lovecraft after trying Debian SidImage
User avatar
VentGrey
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 2016-04-26 23:57
Location: /dev/friends

Re: [SOLVED]No "Ondemand" governor on Intel Celeron N3060

Postby stevepusser » 2017-07-12 20:31

This little system tray applet works well on my system:

http://iso.mxrepo.com/mx/testrepo/pool/ ... r-cpufreq/
The MX Linux repositories: Backports galore! If we don't have something, just ask and we'll try--we like challenges. New packages: AzPainter 2.0.6, Pale Moon 27.4.1, Liquorix kernel 4.11-9, mpv 0.26.0, Kodi 17.3, 0ad 0.0.22, Mesa 13.0.6
User avatar
stevepusser
 
Posts: 8507
Joined: 2009-10-06 05:53

Re: [SOLVED]No "Ondemand" governor on Intel Celeron N3060

Postby wizard10000 » 2017-07-13 16:09

disclaimer: Just my opinion, and it's one of my favorite rants :)

I'm using the intel_pstate driver on my main laptop and the older cpufreq driver on an older laptop in a server role. Both are quad-core i7 machines and both have CPU governors set to performance.

I'm not part of the crowd that believes lowering CPU frequency saves power. Any task you give a processor core takes X number of processor cycles to complete whether that core is running at 500Hz or 5 zillion MHz and will generate pretty much the same amount of heat, but slower clocks run the task spread out over a longer period of time. So, IM frequently less than HO powersave and ondemand governors are kinda useless but it took me quite awhile to come to that conclusion.

Although laptop manufacturers claim it's power management I think what's more likely is that throttling is for thermal control. The default ondemand governor doesn't scale up processor frequency until processor utilization reaches 95%. Processors *should* generate the same amount of thermal energy for any given task regardless of clock speed - but it's up to the machine's thermal protection systems to keep the thing from overheating.

My old first-generation i7 laptop will overheat and throttle back if you max out just *one* core no matter which governor is used. My fourth-generation i7 has better thermal management and slightly better cooling and when doing CPU-intensive tasks it performs considerably better.

Anyway, if you want to save power what we should be doing is undervolting, not underclocking but that's not possible on laptops unless they're second generation Core processors or earlier and not possible at all with third-generation Core or later or any AMD processor in a laptop.

Anyway, I'm done ranting. Would really like to hear others' opinions on this topic :)
we see things not as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
User avatar
wizard10000
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: 2011-05-09 20:02
Location: midwestern us


Return to Hardware

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

fashionable