From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754363Ab3AUNMF (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:12:05 -0500 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:57228 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753022Ab3AUNMB (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:12:01 -0500 Message-ID: <50FD3E93.70407@canonical.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:11:47 +0000 From: Stefan Bader User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130105 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Andre Przywara , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: kernel 3.7+ cpufreq regression on AMD system running as dom0 References: <50F42B3E.7090602@canonical.com> <20130114163445.GA4867@liondog.tnic> <20130115175305.GA12449@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20130115181839.GC8101@liondog.tnic> <20130118190015.GC11351@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20130118200331.GF4062@pd.tnic> <50FD32FA.7010306@canonical.com> <20130121124255.GB4823@pd.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20130121124255.GB4823@pd.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/21/2013 12:42 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:22:18PM +0000, Stefan Bader wrote: >> So for having the "check for sensible BIOS" in mainline I refreshed >> the patch (fixed the bit test, and actually tested it this time) and >> also added some hopefully sensible explanation to it (attached >> below). >> >> Should I send it to acpi lists or would that have to go via an Andre? > > Maybe Rafael could pick it up? > >> >> -Stefan >> >> From 6e2fc8291c91339123a37162382d8b08b50867ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Stefan Bader >> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:17:00 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Check MSR valid bit before using P-state frequencies >> >> To fix incorrect P-state frequencies which can happen on >> some AMD systems f594065faf4f9067c2283a34619fc0714e79a98d >> "ACPI: Add fixups for AMD P-state figures" >> introduced a quirk to obtain the correct values by reading >> from AMD specific MSRs. >> >> This did cause a regression when running a kernel using that >> quirk under Xen which does (currently) not pass on the contents >> of the HW but 0. > > Actually this should say "does not currently pass through MSR accesses > to baremetal" or similar. Ok, that sounds much better. > > And this bit you mean is actually bit 63: > > "63: PstateEn. Read-write. 1=The P-state specified by this MSR is valid. > 0=The P-state specified by this MSR is not valid. The purpose of this > register is to indicate if the rest of the P-state information in the > register is valid after a reset; it controls no hardware." > > in the MSRC001_00[68:64] P-State [4:0] Registers. Darn, yes. > >> And this seems to cause a failure to initialize >> the ondemand governour (hard to say for sure as all P-states >> appear to run at the same frequency). >> >> While this should also be fixed in the hypervisor (to allow >> a guest to read that MSR), this patch is intended to work >> around the issue in the meantime. In discussion it turned out >> that indeed real HW/BIOSes may choose to not set the valid bit >> and thus mark the P-state as invalid. So this could be considered >> a fix for broken BIOSes that also works around the issue on Xen. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.7.. >> --- >> drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c >> index 836bfe0..41f4bdac 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c >> @@ -340,6 +340,9 @@ static void amd_fixup_frequency(struct >> acpi_processor_px *px, int i) >> if ((boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x10 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model < 10) >> || boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x11) { >> rdmsr(MSR_AMD_PSTATE_DEF_BASE + index, lo, hi); >> + /* Bit 63 indicates whether contents are valid */ >> + if (!(hi & 0x80000000)) > > You can make this a lot more explicit: > > if (!(hi & BIT(31))) > return; > True, ok, so let me respin the whole thing and re-send it. -Stefan > This way > > 1) you're sure you're testing the correct bit and > 2) any reviewer can know on the spot which bit it is about. > >> + return; >> fid = lo & 0x3f; >> did = (lo >> 6) & 7; >> if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x10) > > Thanks. >