Package: powertop
Version: 2.0-0.3
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
Please look at the attached screen shot. The over all power consumption
is reported 11.4 W where as the the Laptop fan power estimates alone is
shown 13.1 W. Is this correct ???
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (101, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.10-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_IN, LC_CTYPE=en_IN (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages powertop depends on:
ii libc6 2.17-92
ii libgcc1 1:4.8.1-2
ii libncursesw5 5.9+20130608-1
ii libnl-3-200 3.2.21-1
ii libnl-genl-3-200 3.2.21-1
ii libpci3 1:3.2.0-3
ii libstdc++6 4.8.1-2
ii libtinfo5 5.9+20130608-1
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.8.dfsg-1
powertop recommends no packages.
Versions of packages powertop suggests:
pn cpufrequtils <none>
ii laptop-mode-tools 1.63-2
-- no debconf information
Acknowledgement sent
to Julian Wollrath <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Patrick Winnertz <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:03:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
that seems strange. Could you please try a more recent version [0] to
see if that one still shows such a high power consumption for the fan?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Julian
[0] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/jw-guest/powertop.git
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSD52UAAoJEFl2dmpRMS8zzDUH/2p/mxBsvJ92IeQcpcIvT4Ft
SGqXbXcyUk9ch9dGDViiDA1i3YUNM66SQk0CmZOWKVCY84pZud/u7uaIctYo2CNT
L+oQ0mtHbMURSKI6im0vP4gIVfm8Q3EWAV6YnIhjIrBW0EwYLhNOZkx+qi7MIBAn
sx8tPKW6PxQT8CeWzp12Lap64zvx2gymOmKSuAGXG4yKyTuMhB2o/xZqpdOZxDSK
pXnGUJTAH/Qg4Ohv4O1GBW2i0Rtfp8uEV3Tgmp1wquZPpdEy4uq56YwOhgdWhBvV
PCogoxwHnQiW3y1YG2s0AUgghSkpmNXZEQv6MwXv2P54XeqVTosDvbTvoBJeFFs=
=D85V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Acknowledgement sent
to Ritesh Raj Sarraf <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Patrick Winnertz <[email protected]>.
(Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:33:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
I tried the git version and the problem persists. I'll send the screenshot
later
s3nt fr0m a $martph0ne, excuse typ0s
On Aug 17, 2013 9:28 PM, "Julian Wollrath" <[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi,
>
> that seems strange. Could you please try a more recent version [0] to
> see if that one still shows such a high power consumption for the fan?
> Thanks.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Julian
>
> [0] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/jw-guest/powertop.git
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSD52UAAoJEFl2dmpRMS8zzDUH/2p/mxBsvJ92IeQcpcIvT4Ft
> SGqXbXcyUk9ch9dGDViiDA1i3YUNM66SQk0CmZOWKVCY84pZud/u7uaIctYo2CNT
> L+oQ0mtHbMURSKI6im0vP4gIVfm8Q3EWAV6YnIhjIrBW0EwYLhNOZkx+qi7MIBAn
> sx8tPKW6PxQT8CeWzp12Lap64zvx2gymOmKSuAGXG4yKyTuMhB2o/xZqpdOZxDSK
> pXnGUJTAH/Qg4Ohv4O1GBW2i0Rtfp8uEV3Tgmp1wquZPpdEy4uq56YwOhgdWhBvV
> PCogoxwHnQiW3y1YG2s0AUgghSkpmNXZEQv6MwXv2P54XeqVTosDvbTvoBJeFFs=
> =D85V
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
On Monday 19 August 2013 03:01 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> I tried the git version and the problem persists. I'll send the
> screenshot later
attached
--
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com
"Necessity is the mother of invention."
Hi Ritesh,
In the last screenshot you sent from 2.4 I can't see the report of the
laptop FAN, yet, you said it persisted. Could you try again?
2.4-1 is already in unstable.
--
Jose Luis Rivas
http://joseluisrivas.net/
On Sunday 01 September 2013 11:24 PM, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> In the last screenshot you sent from 2.4 I can't see the report of the
> laptop FAN, yet, you said it persisted. Could you try again?
>
> 2.4-1 is already in unstable.
The Laptop Fan is not reported any more. But still, the power
consumption reporting is wrong.
What is your say? Isn't the sum of the items in the "Power estimates"
column suppose to be the total power consumption ?
--
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com
"Necessity is the mother of invention."
Subject: Re: Bug#719860: powertop: wrong power report status
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 11:55:08 -0430
Hi Ritesh,
More data?
Why is bad the reporting? What's reporting? Comparing with `acpi -V`?
Thanks for your feedback!
--
Jose Luis Rivas
http://joseluisrivas.net/
On Wednesday 04 September 2013 09:55 PM, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> More data?
>
> Why is bad the reporting? What's reporting? Comparing with `acpi -V`?
WHat more data do you want? I think I've provided you with enough
screenshots.
acpi's reporting is different than what powertop shows. I can't see much
commonality in their results.
--
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com
"Necessity is the mother of invention."
Package: powertop
Version: 2.6.1-1
Followup-For: Bug #719860
Please find the acpi -V output below, though I can't find any point to build relation with powertop's output.
$acpi -V
Battery 0: Discharging, 87%, 05:20:00 remaining
Battery 0: design capacity 2680 mAh, last full capacity 2680 mAh = 100%
Adapter 0: off-line
Thermal 0: ok, 127.0 degrees C
Thermal 0: trip point 0 switches to mode critical at temperature 128.0 degrees C
Thermal 1: ok, 30.0 degrees C
Thermal 1: trip point 0 switches to mode critical at temperature 128.0 degrees C
Thermal 1: trip point 1 switches to mode passive at temperature 55.0 degrees C
Thermal 2: ok, 0.0 degrees C
Thermal 2: trip point 0 switches to mode critical at temperature 128.0 degrees C
Thermal 3: ok, 0.0 degrees C
Thermal 3: trip point 0 switches to mode critical at temperature 128.0 degrees C
Thermal 4: ok, 0.0 degrees C
Thermal 4: trip point 0 switches to mode critical at temperature 128.0 degrees C
Thermal 4: trip point 1 switches to mode passive at temperature 102.0 degrees C
Thermal 5: ok, 40.0 degrees C
Thermal 5: trip point 0 switches to mode critical at temperature 128.0 degrees C
Thermal 5: trip point 1 switches to mode hot at temperature 99.0 degrees C
Cooling 0: x86_pkg_temp no state information available
Cooling 1: intel_powerclamp no state information available
Cooling 2: Processor 0 of 10
Cooling 3: Processor 0 of 10
Cooling 4: Processor 0 of 10
Cooling 5: Processor 0 of 10
I've tried powertop on 3 machines, and everywhere I get weird readings. It sure is a powertop problem. It could also be a screwed up thermal driver. Look at the thermal output. It has been wrong for months now.
Please also see latest screenshot attached. It report that the bridge interface is consuming 50 W of power.
- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_IN, LC_CTYPE=en_IN (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages powertop depends on:
ii libc6 2.19-15
ii libgcc1 1:4.9.2-10
ii libncursesw5 5.9+20140913-1+b1
ii libnl-3-200 3.2.24-2
ii libnl-genl-3-200 3.2.24-2
ii libpci3 1:3.2.1-3
ii libstdc++6 4.9.2-10
ii libtinfo5 5.9+20140913-1+b1
powertop recommends no packages.
Versions of packages powertop suggests:
pn cpufrequtils <none>
ii laptop-mode-tools 1.66-2
-- no debconf information
Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained
from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.