10 ms·

This is really not the correct approach. https://github.com/intel/thermal_daemon https://github.com/intel/thermal_daemon ought to do a better job without ignori

by mjg59 4y ago

This is really not the correct approach. https://github.com/intel/thermal_daemon https://github.com/intel/thermal_daemon ought to do a better job without ignoring manufacturer thermal limits (I reverse engineered Intel's Dynamic Power and Thermal Framework a few years back, and upstream kernels should have everything needed now: https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/54923.html https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/54923.html)

userbinator 4y ago
without ignoring manufacturer thermal limits The whole point is to ignore them because they're horrible and hold back what these CPUs can really do. Fuck the manufacturers playing these stupid marketing games. Intel warrants their CPUs at TjMax 24/7, they'll automatically throttle when they hit that limit, and disabling all this other throttling crap makes them run that way for full performance.
- rincebrain 4y ago
  FWIW, I've managed to make multiple X1C6s thermally trip and shut off without changing from the safe configuration, which rather impressed me because I didn't know that was feasible these days. Mostly I mention it to say that there's not _no_ reason for thermal limits in modern setups...
  - userbinator 4y ago
    I believe that's called a defective product --- and reminds me of a certain somewhat infamous series of Toshiba laptops which would overheat and shutdown if you spent too long in BIOS setup, because the fans were entirely software controlled. There's zero reason for all this extra "thermal management" crap beyond corporate greed.
    - mjg59 4y ago
      You can design hardware that's capable of dissipating the maximum heat output of every component simultaneously, but you'll end up with hardware that's significantly larger, heavier, and costs more to manufacture. Or you can design hardware that's capable of dissipating the expected heat output under a range of use-cases, and devolve policy management to the OS so it can (based on user preference) prioritise appropriately, allowing you to produce smaller, lighter machines that either cost less or generate more profit. Even if the motivation for cutting costs is to increase profit margins, users generally still seem to prefer the smaller, lighter hardware that works just fine under most circumstances.
      - salawat 4y ago
        No... That's what you, the manufacturer looking for a rationale to justify extracting more profit want. What people want is a box that does computing within spec and without melting, sterilizing their laps/hands, or otherwise introducing malbehaviors they have to work around. People want stuff that doesn't or is very difficult to break. When it does break, they want it to be a straightforward repair.
      - ecpottinger 4y ago
        That is them, not me.
    - ecpottinger 4y ago
      I had an HP laptop that did that in Windows or Haiku. I rewired the fan to run 100% all of the time and aside from losing some battery time the laptop ran fine. And when plugged into the external power supply I would run it all weekend (4-days) non-stop with no problems.
  - mjg59 4y ago
    The EC may trigger an emergency shutdown if any monitored component (not just the CPU) ends up outside its thermal limits.
    - rincebrain 4y ago
      Indeed; I've replaced the laptop since then, so I don't think I have the log, but I believe it very explicitly logged it was the CPU temperature provoking it before actually shutting down.
    - voltagex_ 4y ago
      Is this normally logged anywhere? You may have just saved me RMAing a laptop.
      - TobTobXX 4y ago
        I had a computer with a broken GPU fan and it thermally shut off. There where kernel log entries about temperature warnings, though I don't remember if it mentioned which component. Systemd should preserve them before the system shuts off.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- mjg59 4y ago
  The whole point is that the CPU is only a single part of the equation. Yes, you're not going to burn out the CPU itself by unlimiting PL1/2 (although if the system vendor cheaped out on power circuitry because they'd only designed for sustained 20W draw then you might burn that out), but you're now generating more heat than the system is designed to dissipate. This may result in obvious outcomes like the chassis heating up enough to burn your legs, but it may also result in other components being operated outside their thermal limits and their lifetime being shortened as a result.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    The experience of many users shows otherwise --- ThrottleStop has similar scary disclaimers, but I have yet to see any evidence of hardware damage caused by opening up the power limits and letting the CPU naturally attain its full performance. but you're now generating more heat than the system is designed to dissipate I believe that's more accurately rephrased as "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have", because that's how it's being used in practice. FYI, it is painfully obvious that you're toeing some sort of company line here. Edit: and getting flagged for pointing out the truth should itself be quite telling. ;-)
    - mjg59 4y ago
      > "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have" "An unthrottled CPU without any OS-level policy will generate enough heat that the case temperature may rise to levels that violate safety regulations" can certainly be interpreted as "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have", yes. > FYI, it is painfully obvious that you're toeing some sort of company line here. I work for a company that develops trucks. While thermal dissipation is something that we do need to worry about, I can promise that it is absolutely not at the scale involved here. I've also been pretty consistent in criticising Intel for refusing to document DPTF. Whose company line do you think I'm toeing here?
      - userbinator 4y ago
        "An unthrottled CPU without any OS-level policy will generate enough heat that the case temperature may rise to levels that violate safety regulations" can certainly be interpreted as "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have", yes. Despite literally zero evidence of that actually being a problem in practice? I've also been pretty consistent in criticising Intel for refusing to document DPTF. Whose company line do you think I'm toeing here? Not Intel, but there's plenty of evidence that DPTF just cripples performance; and why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"? It's like posting "may cause processor damage" and advocating for stock speeds on every article about overclocking. For the record, I've been overclocking (not at extreme or competitive levels) since the early 90s and haven't killed any hardware because of it. The system I'm posting this from has been on a 50% overclock for over a decade and it's still rock-solid stable.
- arka2147483647 4y ago
  If you remove the thermal limit, and if this breaks your cpu, for example, within one year, should intel then replace your cpu? Thermal limits like this are really about managing the manufacturers liabilities, and protecting the expected lifetine of the product.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    The ultimate limit that prevents processor damage, called THERMTRIP, is not possible to disable AFAIK --- it's a purely hardware feature. The one below that, PROCHOT, can be disabled, but it's not useful to do that because it'll just hit the THERMTRIP temperature and shut down instead. Like I said, Intel warrants their CPUs to be operational at TjMax continuously, and that's the temperature they'll reach and stay at automatically if not given enough cooling. There's plenty of stories of people with computers whose heatsink has somehow detached or become so severely clogged as to be at that limit all the time, and the CPUs survive just fine. This article isn't about that; it's about manufacturers artifically limiting performance beyond that to hit a marketing target like battery life or power consumption.
    - mjg59 4y ago
      What? No, it isn't. It's about something that only affects Ultrabook-style devices, and it's extremely clear that it's not to hit a marketing target because if you run Windows the drivers disable the PL1/2 limitations.
      - userbinator 4y ago
        The existence of ThrottleStop and the experience of many others shows that this is also a persistent problem on Windows --- CPU is barely getting warm, and sometimes the fan doesn't even turn on, but then gets throttled to some insanely low speed. Search "800MHz throttling" for plenty of complaints. Disabling all the DPTF and other extra power management bloat puts the CPU speed and performance back where it should be.
        4y ago
FeepingCreature 4y ago
I have had people tell me that they don't care if their computers break, as long as they run faster in the meantime. Some manufacturers genuinely set the limits way too low for their own hardware. I also use this tool to bypass manufacturer limits in battery mode that are intended to make the system seem like the battery is not undersized for the CPU's power draw. Sometimes I'd rather have more CPU for less time.
- ladyanita22 4y ago
  I don't understand why this is a problem for Linux and not fit Windows. The computers don't break on Windows, why Linux uses should take this overly conservative approach that limits the performance of their computer?
  - mjg59 4y ago
    Intel ship DPTF drivers for Windows, so the appropriate thermal policy is configured at boot time. If you install thermald then Linux will do the same.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    In the case of T480 the limit is specified by whether the laptop is in your lap or on the table. In the latter case it allows a much higher limit. This check doesn’t work on Linux, so for safety reasons the former limit is enforced.
    - esaym 4y ago
      How does that check work? Do you have details?
- dannyw 4y ago
  I recall hearing CPU Tmax is designed for a 10 year lifespan. I have never used a laptop for a decade, nor have I had the CPU fail. So perhaps faster performance and shorter lifespan is okay.
  - 4y ago
makeitdouble 4y ago
I assume people got burned by the artificial segmentation of the CPUs solely for pricing purposes. Trusting Intel to provide accurate info on the actual performances of a chip feels too naive at this point.
- magila 4y ago
  If Intel wanted to use power/thermal limits for market segmentation they'd be locked down like the turbo frequency tables on non-K CPUs.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    Can't that be hacked too?
    - NavinF 4y ago
      I'm not aware of any modern CPUs getting hacked to unlock the multiplier. All you can do is BCLK overclocking
      - flangola7 4y ago
        What exactly is preventing it?
- ladyanita22 4y ago
  But on Windows there's not such a problem, why segment then on Linux and not on Windows?
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Because Windows is mainstream and Linux is not.
ladyanita22 4y ago
I don't understand why this is a problem for Linux and not fit Windows. It shouldn't be too difficult to correct on Linux. Why is Windows taking the manufacturer's limits into account while Linux basically ignore it?
- mjg59 4y ago
  It is corrected on Linux. Just install thermald.
  - ladyanita22 4y ago
    Fedora and Ubuntu ship with this. So my understanding is that it may or may not be as good as in Windows, but it's not running under the most conservative approach by default
    - mjg59 4y ago
      Yes. And if you run thermald with the adaptive policy enabled, you shouldn't see any benefit from throttled. It's possible that you will, but if so that's likely a bug.
codethief 4y ago
Hi Matthew, I've been a huge fan of your work ever since, back in 2010 or 2011, thanks to you I got the Gobi 2000 mobile broadband chip working on Linux on my Thinkpad W510! As for the pros and cons of the `throttled` project, yes, this might not be the "officially desired" approach but I know several people who have been using to great success for years. The reality is, unfortunately, that particularly those of us who use Linux machines for work and order the most recent & powerful Thinkpads or Dells they can get their hands on, often realize later on (when the machine arrives) that the default settings handicap our machine to such a degree that we can barely work. Unfortunately, not everyone is a kernel developer, though, or knows how these things work, so quick fixes are often welcome, even if they limit the hardware's lifetime (after all, we'll buy a new device in a few years anyway). What exacerbates this problem is that it's all very intransparent: The "official" way to solve these issues (which, as far as I understand you, is installing thermald?) is not really communicated anywhere, nor does thermald come preinstalled on any of the major distributions AFAIK[0]. What's worse, thermald often doesn't even solve the throttling issues without installing further patches. On top of that, BIOS updates by the manufacturers also seem to play a major role as manufacturers like Lenovo introduce different performance modes and things like "lap mode" etc. To be honest, to this day I haven't quite understood how these things interact and whose responsibility it is to fix things. In my particular case, I have been using a Thinkpad X1 Carbon Gen9 (which Lenovo says "supports" Linux) and at some point, after installing numerous BIOS updates and working my way through hundreds of posts on the Lenovo forums, I just gave up: My machine still regularly throttles down to 800 Mhz per core and 16W under medium load until I hit the secret Fn + H key chore to tell the BIOS to switch back to high performance mode and set the thermal limit back to the maximum. Do you happen to have a recommendation for me as to where I should start looking (again) for a solution? Does thermald fix these issues these days? (I know that when I last looked into it, it didn't.) [0]: (EDIT) I take that back, it looks like thermald does come preinstalled on Fedora and Ubuntu these days. At least it's present on my new Ubuntu 22.04.2 installation. Unfortunately, that doesn't really help me since (and now I remember reading this last time I looked into thermald) according to the changelog[1] for v2.3: > - thermald will not run on Lenovo platforms with lap mode sysfs entry Great, so I still have nowhere to go from here it seems. [1]: https://github.com/intel/thermal_daemon https://github.com/intel/thermal_daemon
haukem 4y ago
Thank you for your comment. I installed thermald on my Lenovo T480 with Debian Bookworm and I get 20% better results in stress-ng. The fans are a bit louder now under high load and off under low load. Without thermald: $ stress-ng --matrix 0 -t 3m --metrics-brief stress-ng: info: [3755113] setting to a 180 second (3 mins, 0.00 secs) run per stressor stress-ng: info: [3755113] dispatching hogs: 8 matrix stress-ng: info: [3755113] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s stress-ng: info: [3755113] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) stress-ng: info: [3755113] matrix 2278812 180.00 1437.43 0.27 12660.06 1585.04 With thermald: $ stress-ng --matrix 0 -t 3m --metrics-brief stress-ng: info: [3755550] setting to a 180 second (3 mins, 0.00 secs) run per stressor stress-ng: info: [3755550] dispatching hogs: 8 matrix stress-ng: info: [3755550] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s stress-ng: info: [3755550] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) stress-ng: info: [3755550] matrix 2791272 180.00 1404.32 0.57 15507.06 1986.83 I just installed it using apt and did no extra configuration. My system was anyway configured for balanced power mode. Why is thermald not installed on desktop installations by default?
- haukem 4y ago
  Is dptfxtract still needed? The thermald man page says this: > In some newer platforms the auto creation of the config file is done by a companion tool "dptfxtract". This tool can be downloaded from "https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract". It is suggested as parts of the install process, run dptfxtract. The dptfxtract gibthub project (https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract) says Intel discontinued the project.
  - haukem 4y ago
    Found it out myself, it is not needed by recent thermald. The ReadMe says this: > Thermald version 2.0 and later has in built parser for thermal tables. So this utility is not required. Make sure that thermald "--adaptive" option is used. https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract/blob/master/README.txt https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract/blob/master/README.txt
nubinetwork 4y ago
I used to disable turbo boost for the longest time, but if someone finally fixed CPU scaling and thermal controls, I might give thermald a try.

by mjg59 4y ago

userbinator 4y ago

without ignoring manufacturer thermal limits The whole point is to ignore them because they're horrible and hold back what these CPUs can really do. Fuck the manufacturers playing these stupid marketing games. Intel warrants their CPUs at TjMax 24/7, they'll automatically throttle when they hit that limit, and disabling all this other throttling crap makes them run that way for full performance.

rincebrain 4y ago
FWIW, I've managed to make multiple X1C6s thermally trip and shut off without changing from the safe configuration, which rather impressed me because I didn't know that was feasible these days. Mostly I mention it to say that there's not _no_ reason for thermal limits in modern setups...
- userbinator 4y ago
  I believe that's called a defective product --- and reminds me of a certain somewhat infamous series of Toshiba laptops which would overheat and shutdown if you spent too long in BIOS setup, because the fans were entirely software controlled. There's zero reason for all this extra "thermal management" crap beyond corporate greed.
  - mjg59 4y ago
    You can design hardware that's capable of dissipating the maximum heat output of every component simultaneously, but you'll end up with hardware that's significantly larger, heavier, and costs more to manufacture. Or you can design hardware that's capable of dissipating the expected heat output under a range of use-cases, and devolve policy management to the OS so it can (based on user preference) prioritise appropriately, allowing you to produce smaller, lighter machines that either cost less or generate more profit. Even if the motivation for cutting costs is to increase profit margins, users generally still seem to prefer the smaller, lighter hardware that works just fine under most circumstances.
    - salawat 4y ago
      No... That's what you, the manufacturer looking for a rationale to justify extracting more profit want. What people want is a box that does computing within spec and without melting, sterilizing their laps/hands, or otherwise introducing malbehaviors they have to work around. People want stuff that doesn't or is very difficult to break. When it does break, they want it to be a straightforward repair.
    - ecpottinger 4y ago
      That is them, not me.
  - ecpottinger 4y ago
    I had an HP laptop that did that in Windows or Haiku. I rewired the fan to run 100% all of the time and aside from losing some battery time the laptop ran fine. And when plugged into the external power supply I would run it all weekend (4-days) non-stop with no problems.
- mjg59 4y ago
  The EC may trigger an emergency shutdown if any monitored component (not just the CPU) ends up outside its thermal limits.
  - rincebrain 4y ago
    Indeed; I've replaced the laptop since then, so I don't think I have the log, but I believe it very explicitly logged it was the CPU temperature provoking it before actually shutting down.
  - voltagex_ 4y ago
    Is this normally logged anywhere? You may have just saved me RMAing a laptop.
    - TobTobXX 4y ago
      I had a computer with a broken GPU fan and it thermally shut off. There where kernel log entries about temperature warnings, though I don't remember if it mentioned which component. Systemd should preserve them before the system shuts off.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
mjg59 4y ago
The whole point is that the CPU is only a single part of the equation. Yes, you're not going to burn out the CPU itself by unlimiting PL1/2 (although if the system vendor cheaped out on power circuitry because they'd only designed for sustained 20W draw then you might burn that out), but you're now generating more heat than the system is designed to dissipate. This may result in obvious outcomes like the chassis heating up enough to burn your legs, but it may also result in other components being operated outside their thermal limits and their lifetime being shortened as a result.
- userbinator 4y ago
  The experience of many users shows otherwise --- ThrottleStop has similar scary disclaimers, but I have yet to see any evidence of hardware damage caused by opening up the power limits and letting the CPU naturally attain its full performance. but you're now generating more heat than the system is designed to dissipate I believe that's more accurately rephrased as "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have", because that's how it's being used in practice. FYI, it is painfully obvious that you're toeing some sort of company line here. Edit: and getting flagged for pointing out the truth should itself be quite telling. ;-)
  - mjg59 4y ago
    > "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have" "An unthrottled CPU without any OS-level policy will generate enough heat that the case temperature may rise to levels that violate safety regulations" can certainly be interpreted as "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have", yes. > FYI, it is painfully obvious that you're toeing some sort of company line here. I work for a company that develops trucks. While thermal dissipation is something that we do need to worry about, I can promise that it is absolutely not at the scale involved here. I've also been pretty consistent in criticising Intel for refusing to document DPTF. Whose company line do you think I'm toeing here?
    - userbinator 4y ago
      "An unthrottled CPU without any OS-level policy will generate enough heat that the case temperature may rise to levels that violate safety regulations" can certainly be interpreted as "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have", yes. Despite literally zero evidence of that actually being a problem in practice? I've also been pretty consistent in criticising Intel for refusing to document DPTF. Whose company line do you think I'm toeing here? Not Intel, but there's plenty of evidence that DPTF just cripples performance; and why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"? It's like posting "may cause processor damage" and advocating for stock speeds on every article about overclocking. For the record, I've been overclocking (not at extreme or competitive levels) since the early 90s and haven't killed any hardware because of it. The system I'm posting this from has been on a 50% overclock for over a decade and it's still rock-solid stable.
arka2147483647 4y ago
If you remove the thermal limit, and if this breaks your cpu, for example, within one year, should intel then replace your cpu? Thermal limits like this are really about managing the manufacturers liabilities, and protecting the expected lifetine of the product.
- userbinator 4y ago
  The ultimate limit that prevents processor damage, called THERMTRIP, is not possible to disable AFAIK --- it's a purely hardware feature. The one below that, PROCHOT, can be disabled, but it's not useful to do that because it'll just hit the THERMTRIP temperature and shut down instead. Like I said, Intel warrants their CPUs to be operational at TjMax continuously, and that's the temperature they'll reach and stay at automatically if not given enough cooling. There's plenty of stories of people with computers whose heatsink has somehow detached or become so severely clogged as to be at that limit all the time, and the CPUs survive just fine. This article isn't about that; it's about manufacturers artifically limiting performance beyond that to hit a marketing target like battery life or power consumption.
  - mjg59 4y ago
    What? No, it isn't. It's about something that only affects Ultrabook-style devices, and it's extremely clear that it's not to hit a marketing target because if you run Windows the drivers disable the PL1/2 limitations.
    - userbinator 4y ago
      The existence of ThrottleStop and the experience of many others shows that this is also a persistent problem on Windows --- CPU is barely getting warm, and sometimes the fan doesn't even turn on, but then gets throttled to some insanely low speed. Search "800MHz throttling" for plenty of complaints. Disabling all the DPTF and other extra power management bloat puts the CPU speed and performance back where it should be.
      - 4y ago

FeepingCreature 4y ago

I have had people tell me that they don't care if their computers break, as long as they run faster in the meantime. Some manufacturers genuinely set the limits way too low for their own hardware. I also use this tool to bypass manufacturer limits in battery mode that are intended to make the system seem like the battery is not undersized for the CPU's power draw. Sometimes I'd rather have more CPU for less time.

ladyanita22 4y ago
I don't understand why this is a problem for Linux and not fit Windows. The computers don't break on Windows, why Linux uses should take this overly conservative approach that limits the performance of their computer?
- mjg59 4y ago
  Intel ship DPTF drivers for Windows, so the appropriate thermal policy is configured at boot time. If you install thermald then Linux will do the same.
- kaba0 4y ago
  In the case of T480 the limit is specified by whether the laptop is in your lap or on the table. In the latter case it allows a much higher limit. This check doesn’t work on Linux, so for safety reasons the former limit is enforced.
  - esaym 4y ago
    How does that check work? Do you have details?
dannyw 4y ago
I recall hearing CPU Tmax is designed for a 10 year lifespan. I have never used a laptop for a decade, nor have I had the CPU fail. So perhaps faster performance and shorter lifespan is okay.
- 4y ago

makeitdouble 4y ago

I assume people got burned by the artificial segmentation of the CPUs solely for pricing purposes. Trusting Intel to provide accurate info on the actual performances of a chip feels too naive at this point.

magila 4y ago
If Intel wanted to use power/thermal limits for market segmentation they'd be locked down like the turbo frequency tables on non-K CPUs.
- flangola7 4y ago
  Can't that be hacked too?
  - NavinF 4y ago
    I'm not aware of any modern CPUs getting hacked to unlock the multiplier. All you can do is BCLK overclocking
    - flangola7 4y ago
      What exactly is preventing it?
ladyanita22 4y ago
But on Windows there's not such a problem, why segment then on Linux and not on Windows?
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Because Windows is mainstream and Linux is not.

ladyanita22 4y ago

I don't understand why this is a problem for Linux and not fit Windows. It shouldn't be too difficult to correct on Linux. Why is Windows taking the manufacturer's limits into account while Linux basically ignore it?

mjg59 4y ago
It is corrected on Linux. Just install thermald.
- ladyanita22 4y ago
  Fedora and Ubuntu ship with this. So my understanding is that it may or may not be as good as in Windows, but it's not running under the most conservative approach by default
  - mjg59 4y ago
    Yes. And if you run thermald with the adaptive policy enabled, you shouldn't see any benefit from throttled. It's possible that you will, but if so that's likely a bug.

codethief 4y ago

Hi Matthew, I've been a huge fan of your work ever since, back in 2010 or 2011, thanks to you I got the Gobi 2000 mobile broadband chip working on Linux on my Thinkpad W510! As for the pros and cons of the `throttled` project, yes, this might not be the "officially desired" approach but I know several people who have been using to great success for years. The reality is, unfortunately, that particularly those of us who use Linux machines for work and order the most recent & powerful Thinkpads or Dells they can get their hands on, often realize later on (when the machine arrives) that the default settings handicap our machine to such a degree that we can barely work. Unfortunately, not everyone is a kernel developer, though, or knows how these things work, so quick fixes are often welcome, even if they limit the hardware's lifetime (after all, we'll buy a new device in a few years anyway). What exacerbates this problem is that it's all very intransparent: The "official" way to solve these issues (which, as far as I understand you, is installing thermald?) is not really communicated anywhere, nor does thermald come preinstalled on any of the major distributions AFAIK[0]. What's worse, thermald often doesn't even solve the throttling issues without installing further patches. On top of that, BIOS updates by the manufacturers also seem to play a major role as manufacturers like Lenovo introduce different performance modes and things like "lap mode" etc. To be honest, to this day I haven't quite understood how these things interact and whose responsibility it is to fix things. In my particular case, I have been using a Thinkpad X1 Carbon Gen9 (which Lenovo says "supports" Linux) and at some point, after installing numerous BIOS updates and working my way through hundreds of posts on the Lenovo forums, I just gave up: My machine still regularly throttles down to 800 Mhz per core and 16W under medium load until I hit the secret Fn + H key chore to tell the BIOS to switch back to high performance mode and set the thermal limit back to the maximum. Do you happen to have a recommendation for me as to where I should start looking (again) for a solution? Does thermald fix these issues these days? (I know that when I last looked into it, it didn't.) [0]: (EDIT) I take that back, it looks like thermald does come preinstalled on Fedora and Ubuntu these days. At least it's present on my new Ubuntu 22.04.2 installation. Unfortunately, that doesn't really help me since (and now I remember reading this last time I looked into thermald) according to the changelog[1] for v2.3: > - thermald will not run on Lenovo platforms with lap mode sysfs entry Great, so I still have nowhere to go from here it seems. [1]: https://github.com/intel/thermal_daemon https://github.com/intel/thermal_daemon

haukem 4y ago

Thank you for your comment. I installed thermald on my Lenovo T480 with Debian Bookworm and I get 20% better results in stress-ng. The fans are a bit louder now under high load and off under low load. Without thermald: $ stress-ng --matrix 0 -t 3m --metrics-brief stress-ng: info: [3755113] setting to a 180 second (3 mins, 0.00 secs) run per stressor stress-ng: info: [3755113] dispatching hogs: 8 matrix stress-ng: info: [3755113] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s stress-ng: info: [3755113] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) stress-ng: info: [3755113] matrix 2278812 180.00 1437.43 0.27 12660.06 1585.04 With thermald: $ stress-ng --matrix 0 -t 3m --metrics-brief stress-ng: info: [3755550] setting to a 180 second (3 mins, 0.00 secs) run per stressor stress-ng: info: [3755550] dispatching hogs: 8 matrix stress-ng: info: [3755550] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s stress-ng: info: [3755550] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) stress-ng: info: [3755550] matrix 2791272 180.00 1404.32 0.57 15507.06 1986.83 I just installed it using apt and did no extra configuration. My system was anyway configured for balanced power mode. Why is thermald not installed on desktop installations by default?

haukem 4y ago
Is dptfxtract still needed? The thermald man page says this: > In some newer platforms the auto creation of the config file is done by a companion tool "dptfxtract". This tool can be downloaded from "https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract". It is suggested as parts of the install process, run dptfxtract. The dptfxtract gibthub project (https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract) says Intel discontinued the project.
- haukem 4y ago
  Found it out myself, it is not needed by recent thermald. The ReadMe says this: > Thermald version 2.0 and later has in built parser for thermal tables. So this utility is not required. Make sure that thermald "--adaptive" option is used. https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract/blob/master/README.txt https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract/blob/master/README.txt

nubinetwork 4y ago

I used to disable turbo boost for the longest time, but if someone finally fixed CPU scaling and thermal controls, I might give thermald a try.