Re: v3.13.5 intel_pstate: cpufreq: __cpufreq_add_dev: ->get() failed

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

 



On 03/11/2014 12:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:58:59 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
Hi Patrick,

Sorry for the slow response you caught me taking a few days off :-)

On 03/07/2014 07:49 AM, Patrik Lundquist wrote:
Hi,

booting 3.13.5 on a dual socket Ivy Bridge-EP resulted in this error:

[    0.194139] smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2687W v2 @
3.40GHz (fam: 06, model: 3e, stepping: 04)
...
[    0.246755] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
[    0.250935] .... node  #0, CPUs:        #1  #2  #3  #4  #5  #6  #7
[    0.357648] .... node  #1, CPUs:    #8  #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15
[    0.553293] x86: Booted up 2 nodes, 16 CPUs
[    0.557666] smpboot: Total of 16 processors activated (108850.19 BogoMIPS)
...
[    5.210204] Intel P-state driver initializing.
[    5.232407] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 0
[    5.253628] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 1
[    5.274899] cpufreq: __cpufreq_add_dev: ->get() failed
[    5.294856] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 2
[    5.313553] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 3
[    5.332526] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 4
[    5.352347] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 5
[    5.372112] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 6
[    5.391097] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 7
[    5.410272] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 8
[    5.429092] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 9
[    5.447714] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 10
[    5.465872] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 11
[    5.482942] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 12
[    5.498414] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 13
[    5.513586] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 14
[    5.529200] Intel pstate controlling: cpu 15

CPU 1 is alive and well but missing the cpufreq driver. The system is
running fine otherwise.

This is a regression introduced by commit
da60ce9f2fa cpufreq: call cpufreq_driver->get() after calling ->init()


A return of zero from cpufreq_driver->get() is a warning at best for
intel_pstate at init time.  In fact zero is a valid return value AFAICT.

Well, is it?  So what is the 0 supposed to mean?

Zero frequency the core is not running. I said it is a valid answer not that I should be returning it. There is nothing in the docs or headers that I can
find that says Zero is a failure value.

In this case the the error should be a warning maybe __cpufreq_add_dev() the only use of policy->cur is the bootloader workaround.



Rafael


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Devel]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux