PowerMac G5 quad-core, CPU A1 DIODE TEMP: 90.8 C (for example): How to handle? [more data]

[Mark Millard]

I've now tested the new patch and strongly expect that the new code is much better but it is not sufficient to keep the temperature down on the problematical quad-core G5 that I've been testing via buildworld. It did last over 30 minutes and there were no 0 rpm figures sampled for this new code.

Note: it turns out the two sysctl dumps of samples (dev.smu and dev.smusat) are done (as a pair) more like once every 3 to 4 seconds, not once a second. I include timestamps this time.

The new code ended up keeping the intake and exhaust fans near the 3200 maxrpm for a long time and the pump near the maxrpm 3600 too. But that was not enough for this G5 to keep its cool. It would apparently take giving the CPUs/cores some periodic idle time to cool down in order to keep this G5 cool enough. (Really just cpu a1 needing such.)

Over the interval below (01:45:51 to 02:13:50) no .rpm figure was sampled as < 3100 and no pump.rpm was sampled as < 3400.

Sat Jan 17 01:45:51 PST 2015
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_intake.rpm: 3131
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_intake.rpm: 3131
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 3127
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_exhaust.rpm: 3143
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_pump.rpm: 3549
dev.smusat.0.cpu_a0_diode_temp: 59.4C
dev.smusat.0.cpu_a1_diode_temp: 70.3C
dev.smusat.1.cpu_b0_diode_temp: 59.1C
dev.smusat.1.cpu_b1_diode_temp: 64.8C
Sat Jan 17 01:45:54 PST 2015
... Over the below range pump.rpm is sampled as < 3500 only 6 times (each > 3400)...
Sat Jan 17 02:01:46 PST 2015
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_intake.rpm: 3197
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_intake.rpm: 3202
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 3200
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_exhaust.rpm: 3198
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_pump.rpm: 3636
dev.smusat.0.cpu_a0_diode_temp: 67.6C
dev.smusat.0.cpu_a1_diode_temp: 81.6C
dev.smusat.1.cpu_b0_diode_temp: 61.0C
dev.smusat.1.cpu_b1_diode_temp: 65.6C
Sat Jan 17 02:01:50 PST 2015
... The last lines that made it into the file before automatic shutdown were ...
Sat Jan 17 02:13:50 PST 2015
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_intake.rpm: 3200
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_intake.rpm: 3199
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 3199
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_b_exhaust.rpm: 3197
dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_pump.rpm: 3614
dev.smusat.0.cpu_a0_diode_temp: 73.0C
dev.smusat.0.cpu_a1_diode_temp: 90.9C
dev.smusat.1.cpu_b0_diode_temp: 62.6C
dev.smusat.1.cpu_b1_diode_temp: 67.1C
Sat Jan 17 02:13:54 PST 2015

So for the last 12 minutes or so the cpu intakes, exhausts, and pump were going basically full blast. It was not enough for my context but likely would help some other contexts.

===
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net

...
On 2015-Jan-16, at 11:31 PM, Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 23:08:17 -0800
Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net <http://dsl-only.net/>> wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> An oddity of the patch is dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm is almost
> always zero when sampled: (This was during the "make -j 8 buildworld
> buildkernel" sort of test.)
> 
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 3197
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 3199
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 3197
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 278
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> dev.smu.0.fans.cpu_a_exhaust.rpm: 0
> 
> The b_exhaust and the intakes and the a_pump look more reasonable.
> 
> ===
> Mark Millard
> markmi at dsl-only.net <http://dsl-only.net/>
> 

I think that might be simply a timing issue.  I haven't seen any
problems testing on my dual G5.  How does the temperature look now?
Do you still have overheating problems?

I have an updated patch available at
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1549 <https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1549> , which is what I'm testing on my
machine.

- Justin