On 03/11/2014 01:20 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()
So the problem is that ->get() may return 0 in intel_pstate and that causes
the core's _add function to abort? That would mean sample->freq equal to 0,
which shouldn't happen after intel_pstate_sample() called by intel_pstate_init_cpu().
Or am I missing anything?
The problem is that the core has been running less than 1% of the time based on
the absolute values of aperf/mperf and the second sample has not been taken to
get a more precise delta.
I thought about running sample twice during init but didn't want to propose it
until I made sure I was not going to break anything else.
second sample hasn't been taken
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
