Eee Atom CPU control - testing
eeecontrol .3 now works for me. I think it would be helpful to somehow specify that this isn't changing the cpu frequency scaling algorithm but rather the fsb speed. Setting it to powersave seems to save about a Watt on my machine. Might be nice to have the tool change both the fsb and the scaling algorithm in the same window.
a whole 2.49MHz! But that just may be the key I need Rolf. Because they are different I can differentiate. Thankyourhadon wrote:
Edit: Mick, if you have solved your problem and you can laugh again: Hey, my CPU runs faster than yours
Jemimah, thanks for your report.
I'm not out of the woods yet though. Celeron owners, especially 700, 701 owners: I need your output from
Code: Select all
#cat /proc/eee/fsb
Code: Select all
#cat /proc/cpuinfo
Going by Rolf's results there maybe 4 cases to cater for, if not more.
(Atom, Celeron in Eee 900, 701, 701SD)
Thanks in anticipation.
Last edited by 01micko on Wed 07 Oct 2009, 22:01, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
Atom testers,
On the first page of this thread mawebb88 and hokal reported that their Atoms, without any outside help, ie before we started playing with commands to alter the fsb, that their result of running "cat /sys/devices/platform/eeepc/cpufv" were "768". From that, we deduce that the Atoms start from boot in Performance mode. I'd like to see some tests after the gui is installed and the fsb altered to see if the Atoms still boot in Performance mode by default . I suspect this will be the case.
Help please
On the first page of this thread mawebb88 and hokal reported that their Atoms, without any outside help, ie before we started playing with commands to alter the fsb, that their result of running "cat /sys/devices/platform/eeepc/cpufv" were "768". From that, we deduce that the Atoms start from boot in Performance mode. I'd like to see some tests after the gui is installed and the fsb altered to see if the Atoms still boot in Performance mode by default . I suspect this will be the case.
Help please
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
Thanks Rolf! (edited post)rhadon wrote: MHz Mick, Millions of Hz
Although I write this with a big smile I don't mean it serious.
~ Rollf
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
- Attachments
-
- eee-widget.png
- (29.07 KiB) Downloaded 1016 times
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
-
- Posts: 5464
- Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 05:12
- Location: Australia
Thanks dawnsboy,dawnsboy wrote:The chipset in the Eeepc 701SD is in fact the Intel Celeron M 353. The cpu on these models defaults to 900MHz.
That explain's why rhadon's Eee 900 (Celeron M 353) is at 900 MHz at bootup.
OK, this confirms that the new 353-Celerons definitely should not be using the "/proc/eee/fsb" method for CPU FSB control.dawnsboy wrote:Users on the forum at eeeuser.com report that they have been unsuccessful in overclocking it with the exception of those who have tried the Super Hybrid Engine (701SD apparently came with it installed) report being able to adjust clock speeds to 630MHz (underclock), 900MHz (default) and 960MHz (overclock).
They should be using the "/sys/devices/platform/eeepc/cpufv" method which is, in fact, SHE (Super Hybrid Engine) control.
Just to be clear here:
rhadon's Eee 900 and 01micko's Eee 701SD both have the new "353"-Celeron.
In theory, the Atom gui is the correct one for them. It uses the /sys/devices/platform/eeepc/cpufv
file for FSB speed.
The question remains: how do we differentiate between the two Celerons to help install the correct gui?
-
- Posts: 5464
- Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 05:12
- Location: Australia
... OK, I just Googled for the output of "cat /proc/cpuinfo" of an Eee 700 (with older Celeron).
We already know that "model name" is the same as the faster Celeron
... but I see a difference:
"stepping : 6"
whereas the 353-Celeron has "stepping : 8"
Of course, Puppy users with older Celerons need to confirm this.
We already know that "model name" is the same as the faster Celeron
... but I see a difference:
"stepping : 6"
whereas the 353-Celeron has "stepping : 8"
Of course, Puppy users with older Celerons need to confirm this.
As soon as we can confirm the output from for an older Celeron a new gui will be ready.
A little strange the 2.49MHZ difference between rhadon's and my results but I guess voltages would be slightly different, different draws of current for different hardware and different power supplies.
Code: Select all
#cat /proc/cpuinfo
A little strange the 2.49MHZ difference between rhadon's and my results but I guess voltages would be slightly different, different draws of current for different hardware and different power supplies.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
-
- Posts: 5464
- Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 05:12
- Location: Australia
First check that the eee module is installed -prehistoric wrote:The fan control script complains that the proc/eee directory does not exist.
Code: Select all
modinfo eee
If/when you do see the eee module reported, next check that it's loaded -
Code: Select all
lsmod
Code: Select all
modprobe eee
Hmmm..
Did some benchmarking ...
Doesn't look like there is any change..
I'm going to take a look inside Xandros (yuk!) to look for any clues
Did some benchmarking ...
Doesn't look like there is any change..
I'm going to take a look inside Xandros (yuk!) to look for any clues
- Attachments
-
- benchmarkr-results.tar.gz
- (1.55 KiB) Downloaded 347 times
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
And there will not be a change if you are using an Eeepc 701 SD. Unlike its 701 series counterparts the 701SD is set at 900MHz by default.However you should find the Super Hybrid Engine on the default Xandros that should allow you to underclock to 630MHz, return to the default 900MHz or overclock to 960MHz.Doesn't look like there is any change..
Look for my post near the bottom of the page at this link: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 3&start=30 for more on this subject. Hopefully it will be of some help to you.
Thanks dawnsboy,
Read all the links you pointed me too and it certainly seems the only way to control the cpu freq on the 701SD is with SHE, (which looks like is owned by ASUS and probably closed source).
The p4-clockmod I suppose then is the stumbling block here? Xandros has a very old kernel, 2.6.1 but SHE does seem to work, no difference from performance to super-performance but powersaving shows a notable difference, however Puppy is faster overall. (No surprise there)
Cheers
Read all the links you pointed me too and it certainly seems the only way to control the cpu freq on the 701SD is with SHE, (which looks like is owned by ASUS and probably closed source).
The p4-clockmod I suppose then is the stumbling block here? Xandros has a very old kernel, 2.6.1 but SHE does seem to work, no difference from performance to super-performance but powersaving shows a notable difference, however Puppy is faster overall. (No surprise there)
Cheers
- Attachments
-
- xandros-bench.tar.gz
- (1.69 KiB) Downloaded 346 times
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
-
- Posts: 5464
- Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 05:12
- Location: Australia
No no.01micko wrote:it certainly seems the only way to control the cpu freq on the 701SD is with SHE, (which looks like is owned by ASUS and probably closed source).
The eeepc-laptop kernel module fully supports the SHE function, and exposes it as /sys/devices/platform/eeepc/cpufv
I started this forum thread with the express purpose of testing this new form of CPU FSB control.
In fact, with earlier versions of the eeepc-laptop module the FSB configuration file was called "she". From kernel 2.6.30 onward it's now called "cpufv".
Hmmm..... No difference with the benchmark though but it clearly works in xandros. Perplexing. Only probable answer is incompatibility with the p4-clockmod as reported by dawnsboy.
Can you or anyone recommend a good open source cpu benchmarking tool? There are a few, but I don't know where to start.
Cheers
Can you or anyone recommend a good open source cpu benchmarking tool? There are a few, but I don't know where to start.
Cheers
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
- prehistoric
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue 23 Oct 2007, 17:34
re: kernel modules and stack trace on boot
@tempestuous,
I apologize if this post is verbose, but I'm trying to avoid misunderstanding. I went back and downloaded those pets just before I ran this yesterday to get that depmod_FULL change you mention. I'm holding the installation which showed the problem on an SD card, so I can slip it in and exactly reproduce things. I'm hoping this will keep it from being contaminated by separate experiments.
First, results of modinfo:Here's my complete lsmod output:
Modification of rc.local
Does that cover all the questions?
I apologize if this post is verbose, but I'm trying to avoid misunderstanding. I went back and downloaded those pets just before I ran this yesterday to get that depmod_FULL change you mention. I'm holding the installation which showed the problem on an SD card, so I can slip it in and exactly reproduce things. I'm hoping this will keep it from being contaminated by separate experiments.
First, results of modinfo:
Code: Select all
:# modinfo eee
filename: /lib/modules/2.6.30.5/kernel/drivers/acpi/eee.ko
description: Support for eeePC-specific functionality.
author: Andrew Tipton
license: GPL
depends: i2c-core
vermagic: 2.6.30.5 SMP mod_unload modversions 486
#
# modinfo eeepc_laptop
filename /lib/modules/2.6.30.5/kernel/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.ko
license: GPL
description: Eee PC Hotkey Driver
author: Corentin Chary, Eric Cooper
alias: acpi*:ASUS010:*
depends: hwmon,rfkill
vermagic: 2.6.30.5 SMP mod_unload modversions 486
#
Code: Select all
# lsmod
Module Size Used by
parport_pc 29828 0
lp 9476 0
parport 34508 2 parport_pc,lp
snd_pcm_oss 37440 0
snd_seq_dummy 2608 0
snd_seq_oss 27648 0
snd_seq_midi_event 6892 1 snd_seq_oss
snd_seq 48464 5 snd_seq_dummy,snd_seq_oss,snd_seq_midi_event
snd_seq_device 6968 3 snd_seq_dummy,snd_seq_oss,snd_seq
snd_mixer_oss 15820 1 snd_pcm_oss
eee 5188 1
i2c_core 23776 1 eee
iptable_mangle 2380 0
iptable_nat 4684 0
nf_nat 17888 1 iptable_nat
ipt_REJECT 2828 1
nf_conntrack_ftp 7120 0
nf_conntrack_irc 5136 0
iptable_filter 2348 1
xt_state 1836 4
nf_conntrack_ipv4 13336 7 iptable_nat,nf_nat
nf_conntrack 63764 6 iptable_nat,nf_nat,nf_conntrack_ftp,nf_conntrack _irc,xt_state,nf_conntrack_ipv4
nf_defrag_ipv4 1708 1 nf_conntrack_ipv4
ip_tables 11228 3 iptable_mangle,iptable_nat,iptable_filter
fan 4048 0
arc4 1612 2
ecb 2508 2
ath5k 117296 0
mac80211 166056 1 ath5k
led_class 4112 1 ath5k
serio_raw 5168 0
cfg80211 64972 2 ath5k,mac80211
pcspkr 2284 0
snd_hda_codec_realtek 193584 1
atl1e 30688 0
snd_hda_intel 24232 0
snd_hda_codec 64620 2 snd_hda_codec_realtek,snd_hda_intel
snd_pcm 72496 3 snd_pcm_oss,snd_hda_intel,snd_hda_codec
snd_timer 20340 2 snd_seq,snd_pcm
snd 56516 10 snd_pcm_oss,snd_seq_oss,snd_seq,snd_seq_device, snd_mixer_oss,snd_hda_codec_realtek,snd_hda_intel,snd_hda_codec,snd_pcm,snd_time r
soundcore 6912 1 snd
snd_page_alloc 8852 2 snd_hda_intel,snd_pcm
shpchp 31616 0
pci_hotplug 28140 1 shpchp
intel_agp 25788 1
agpgart 34188 2 intel_agp
video 18560 0
output 2796 1 video
battery 10032 0
thermal 12712 0
evdev 9472 0
eeepc_laptop 11680 0
rfkill 10672 2 eeepc_laptop
button 5148 0
hwmon 2344 1 eeepc_laptop
processor 34592 1
ac 3952 0
fuse 53800 0
aufs 137092 1
nls_iso8859_1 3724 1
nls_cp437 5356 1
usbhid 26112 0
usb_storage 51584 1
squashfs 22928 2
uhci_hcd 21564 0
ehci_hcd 32856 0
usbcore 138160 5 usbhid,usb_storage,uhci_hcd,ehci_hcd
#
Code: Select all
# cat /etc/rc.d/rc.local
#this file called from rc.sysinit
#you can edit this file
#When firewall is installed, will append lines to this file...
if [ -x /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall ]; then
/etc/rc.d/rc.firewall start
fi
modprobe eee
/usr/sbin/eee-fan-ctrl.sh &
#
Ok, sorry for getting a little off topic here.. but my pain with the p4-clockmod module does not exist, that is because the module is non-existent in 430-small.iso...(a bug reported in 430-small) (thanks anyway dawnsboy). The current compile of SHE is just not working on Puppy with the Eee-pc-701SD.
Back to the gui, which is the point here.. where are the other Celeron testers? I suppose this is an Atom thread so some are scared off. I will start a new thread to see if some folks with Celerons want to run some commands so I get a better picture. I may provide a minor upgrade in the meantime, with a few refinements.
Cheers.
Back to the gui, which is the point here.. where are the other Celeron testers? I suppose this is an Atom thread so some are scared off. I will start a new thread to see if some folks with Celerons want to run some commands so I get a better picture. I may provide a minor upgrade in the meantime, with a few refinements.
Cheers.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
-
- Posts: 5464
- Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 05:12
- Location: Australia
Ok testers,
Here is 0.4
Changelog
-changed "OK" button to close
-added a splash which shows up for a few seconds letting the user know something is happening
-changed the pinstall script to detect "stepping :6" (older Celerons) and will install the appropriate invoking script to /usr/bin... newer Celerons will use the atom GUI now (*rhadon's and my 701SD)
To Do
-there is no built in mechanism to detect what mode the machine is in at boot.
-it seems later Celerons are in "Normal" mode at boot, older Celerons "Powersave" and I'm not sure about Atoms.
I'm making a new thread for Celeron users, no older Celeron users have posted here so I'm just relying on tempestuous info and google.
Please offer any feedback
Enjoy
SEE NEWER POST V-0.5
Here is 0.4
Changelog
-changed "OK" button to close
-added a splash which shows up for a few seconds letting the user know something is happening
-changed the pinstall script to detect "stepping :6" (older Celerons) and will install the appropriate invoking script to /usr/bin... newer Celerons will use the atom GUI now (*rhadon's and my 701SD)
To Do
-there is no built in mechanism to detect what mode the machine is in at boot.
-it seems later Celerons are in "Normal" mode at boot, older Celerons "Powersave" and I'm not sure about Atoms.
I'm making a new thread for Celeron users, no older Celeron users have posted here so I'm just relying on tempestuous info and google.
Please offer any feedback
Enjoy
SEE NEWER POST V-0.5
Last edited by 01micko on Sat 10 Oct 2009, 12:25, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
- prehistoric
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue 23 Oct 2007, 17:34
fan control bug
I agree, but I'm still getting the error reported earlier. I'm going to do a new installation on another SD card to test the 0.4 script in case this install has been corrupted during testing. We'll see what happens.prehistoric, the result from your "modinfo eee" command confirms that the eee module is loaded on your system.
So the fan control script should not complain about the /proc/eee directory being missing.