Issue with Intel SpeedStep settings
- 
 Hi there, I up/downgraded my pfSense box from a Xeon SuperMicro to a Dell i3-540 R210, mainly to minimize the power consumption. Since then I'm seeing this during the boot: CPU supports enhanced SpeedStep, but it's not recognizedWhat does it telling me? Some of the Google searches suggest that FreeBSD has issues recognizing SpeedStep for some Intel CPUs. How do I fix that? -Santanu 
- 
 any/no one having this issue? 
 Not sure, if i can call it an "issue" but nice to have a clean startup.-S 
- 
 I haven't seen that on my Xeon, however I get this on bootup (Supermicro X8SIL-F w/ x3470): est0: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control="">on cpu0 est1: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control="">on cpu1 est2: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control="">on cpu2 est3: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control="">on cpu3 est4: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control="">on cpu4 est5: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control="">on cpu5 est6: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control="">on cpu6 est7: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control="">on cpu7</enhanced></enhanced></enhanced></enhanced></enhanced></enhanced></enhanced></enhanced>So I assumed that it worked, but sysctl reports max freq + 1 Mhz (== Turbo boost) permanently and doesn't seem to lower the clock in idle.
 PowerD is enabled and set to Hiadaptive.EDIT: 
 Just checked IPMI, the sensors show vcore adjustments. This means Speedstepshouldwork_s_ as intended.Is this a bug in sysctl?EDIT: 
 Works as intended for me. Hiadaptive was just too aggressive. Adaptive shows scaling:sysctl dev.cpu. | grep freq dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 2934/106000 2933/95000 2800/82000 2667/70000 2533/62000 2400/53000 2267/46000 2133/39000 2000/33000 1867/28000 1733/24000 1600/20000 1467/17000 1333/14000 1200/11000 dev.cpu.0.freq: 1333 
 
- 
 Can you enable power management in the BIOS? 
 Also this will show if speedstep is recognized:grep -i speedstep /var/run/dmesg.boot
- 
 Power management is set to "Active Power Controller", which - 
Enable Dell System DBPM (BIOS will not make all P states available to OS) 
- 
Memory frequency = Maximum Performance 
- 
Fan algorithm = Minimum Power 
 This is what I see in the dmesg: [2.3.3-RELEASE][admin@pfs17.littlehome.co.uk]/root: grep -i speedstep /var/run/dmesg.boot est0: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control=""> on cpu0 est: CPU supports Enhanced Speedstep, but is not recognized. est1: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control=""> on cpu1 est: CPU supports Enhanced Speedstep, but is not recognized. est2: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control=""> on cpu2 est: CPU supports Enhanced Speedstep, but is not recognized. est3: <enhanced speedstep="" frequency="" control=""> on cpu3 est: CPU supports Enhanced Speedstep, but is not recognized.</enhanced></enhanced></enhanced></enhanced>
- 
- 
 The Maximum Performance may be stopping the CPU's from any energy efficiency. 
 Is there any other option available other than Max Perf.
- 
 This is common (and VERY OLD) well known FreeBSD pesky problem with powerd and est drivers correct work in Intels cpus. The solution are described here https://www.ateamsystems.com/tech-blog/increase-freebsd-performance-with-powerd/ Because the pfSense are - build on top of FreeBSD components (so some NIC and hardware drivers able to using several cores/several CPUs, some - no https://forum.netgate.com/topic/149735/how-pfsense-utilize-multicore-processors-and-multi-cpu-systems)
- FreeBSD have some issues for a years (!) (especially with drivers);
 In case of using multi-cpu and multi-core hardware some issues come back :) 
- 
 When you see that in the boot log, for example: est0: <Enhanced SpeedStep Frequency Control> on cpu0 est: CPU supports Enhanced Speedstep, but is not recognized. est: cpu_vendor GenuineIntel, msr 233500002000 device_attach: est0 attach returned 6It's almost always because Speedstep is disabled, and often locked, in the BIOS. (The CPU MSRs). Steve 
- 
 @stephenw10 said in Inssue with Intel SpeedStep settings: When you see that in the boot log, for example: est0: <Enhanced SpeedStep Frequency Control> on cpu0 est: CPU supports Enhanced Speedstep, but is not recognized. est: cpu_vendor GenuineIntel, msr 233500002000 device_attach: est0 attach returned 6It's almost always because Speedstep is disabled, and often locked, in the BIOS. (The CPU MSRs). Steve Thank You, Steve! Are You reading the link https://www.ateamsystems.com/tech-blog/increase-freebsd-performance-with-powerd/ ? There are very interesting dependency between SpeedStep and TurboBoost... Isn’t it? 
- 
 Gotta love this! 
  
 I have an ancient (like 2004) P4 server that I run Xigmanas on and get the same message.
 I believe it's because the BIOS has no idea WTF the CPU is talking about.
- 
 @provels said in Issue with Intel SpeedStep settings: Gotta love this! 
  If You Googling that realize that this problem come again and again even in new machines. I have an ancient (like 2004) P4 server that I run Xigmanas on and get the same message. If I able to buy 2012-2014 year produced IBM branded ServerX series 2 CPU 48Gb ECC RAM 2 hot spare PSU 900W each w/ separate mgmt card for $300 and with good Intel 40Gb card he able to deal with 70-80Gb of traffic (with ssl, vpn, balancing, blocking, etc full stack) why I need to spending more? For what reason ? 
 By the way IBM Server X is from “non-Lenovo” era, when IBM have responsibilities for EACH server.So in particular this case “old” not equal “trash”. :) I believe it's because the BIOS has no idea WTF the CPU is talking about. Please read articles that I pointed above. 
- 
 @sergei_shablovsky 
 FWIW, my XigmaNAS box that reports "est: CPU supports Enhanced Speedstep, but is not recognized." , still downclocks as expected with PowerD enabled. So there's that...
- 
 You're probably seeing acpi throttling or p4tcc rather than true CPU frequency changing. I never found either did much. Steve 
- 
 @stephenw10 
 Possibly, the box is 2004 (not a typo). But you're right, it makes no difference in operation. The box sucks 100w at idle or full load (P4, 3.60GHz).
- 
 Yup those later P4s were hungry hungry beasts! 
- 
 D Dobby_ referenced this topic on D Dobby_ referenced this topic on


