On 16-06-21, 12:02, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I tested your branch and got the following while booting:
>
> [ 24.454543] zswap: loaded using pool lzo/zbud
> [ 24.454753] pstore: Using crash dump compression: deflate
> [ 24.454776] AppArmor: AppArmor sha1 policy hashing enabled
> [ 24.454784] ima: No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass!
> [ 24.454789] ima: Allocated hash algorithm: sha256
> [ 24.454801] ima: No architecture policies found
> [ 24.455750] pcieport 0000:0f:00.0: Adding to iommu group 0
> [ 24.893888] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 24.893891] WARNING: CPU: 95 PID: 1442 at
> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:123 cppc_scale_freq_workfn+0xc8/0xf8
> [ 24.893901] Modules linked in:
> [ 24.893906] CPU: 95 PID: 1442 Comm: cppc_fie Not tainted 5.13.0-rc6+ #359
> [ 24.893910] Hardware name: To be filled by O.E.M. Saber/Saber, BIOS
> 0ACKL026 03/19/2019
> [ 24.893912] pstate: 20400009 (nzCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--)
> [ 24.893915] pc : cppc_scale_freq_workfn+0xc8/0xf8
> [ 24.893918] lr : cppc_scale_freq_workfn+0x5c/0xf8
> [ 24.893921] sp : ffff80003727bd90
> [ 24.893922] x29: ffff80003727bd90 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: ffff800010ec2000
> [ 24.893928] x26: ffff800010ec2000 x25: ffff8000107c3d90 x24: 0000000000000001
> [ 24.893932] x23: ffff000816244880 x22: ffff8000113f9000 x21: ffff009f825a0a80
> [ 24.893935] x20: ffff009efc394220 x19: ffff800011199000 x18: 000000000000001b
> [ 24.893939] x17: 0000000000000007 x16: 0000000000000001 x15: 00000000000000bf
> [ 24.893943] x14: 0000000000000016 x13: 000000000000029b x12: 0000000000000016
> [ 24.893946] x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000000 x9 : ffff009efc6958c0
> [ 24.893950] x8 : ffff009efc394248 x7 : 0000000002bde780 x6 : 00000000ffffffff
> [ 24.893954] x5 : 00000000916e502a x4 : 00000000d9730e80 x3 : ffffffffffffffff
> [ 24.893958] x2 : 00000000001e8480 x1 : 00000000002625a0 x0 : 0000000000000401
> [ 24.893962] Call trace:
> [ 24.893964] cppc_scale_freq_workfn+0xc8/0xf8
> [ 24.893967] kthread_worker_fn+0x110/0x318
> [ 24.893971] kthread+0xf4/0x120
> [ 24.893973] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
> [ 24.893977] ---[ end trace ea6dbaf832bce3e4 ]---
Thanks Vincent.
This is triggering from cppc_scale_freq_workfn():
if (WARN_ON(local_freq_scale > 1024))
Looks like there is something fishy about the perf calculations here
after reading the counters, we tried to scale that in the range 0-1024
and it came larger than that.
Will keep you posted.
--
viresh
