[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#505401: linux-2.6: acpi-cpufreq limits core 2 duo 1.6G to 1.2G with kernel ondemand governor



Subject: linux-2.6: acpi-cpufreq limits core 2 duo 1.6G to 1.2G
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.26-5
Severity: important

*** Please type your report below this line ***
Lenovo ThinkPad R61/R61i, model 7732CTO
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     T5470  @ 1.60GHz

cpufrequtils 004: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2006
Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, please.
analyzing CPU 0:
driver: acpi-cpufreq
CPUs which need to switch frequency at the same time: 0 1
hardware limits: 800 MHz - 1.60 GHz
available frequency steps: 1.60 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 800 MHz
available cpufreq governors: powersave, userspace, ondemand, performance
current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 1.20 GHz.
The governor "powersave" may decide which speed to use
within this range.
current CPU frequency is 800 MHz.
analyzing CPU 1:
driver: acpi-cpufreq
CPUs which need to switch frequency at the same time: 0 1
hardware limits: 800 MHz - 1.60 GHz
available frequency steps: 1.60 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 800 MHz
available cpufreq governors: powersave, userspace, ondemand, performance
current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 1.20 GHz.
The governor "powersave" may decide which speed to use
within this range.
current CPU frequency is 800 MHz.

incorrect scaling_max_freq is set by acpi-cpufreq and cannot be changed with cpufreq-set -u or
echo "1600000">/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
scaling_max_freq can be changed to 800MHz
doesn't matter which governor is active

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-20080913-rds-1 (SMP w/2 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash


Reply to: