From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D92AAC43381 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 20:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E72F20661 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 20:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=wiesinger.com header.i=@wiesinger.com header.b="siPWQoZG" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730945AbfCFUDK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:03:10 -0500 Received: from vps01.wiesinger.com ([46.36.37.179]:51294 "EHLO vps01.wiesinger.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726233AbfCFUDK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:03:10 -0500 Received: from wiesinger.com (wiesinger.com [84.113.44.87]) by vps01.wiesinger.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F1FF9F318; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 21:03:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.0.14] ([192.168.0.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by wiesinger.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x26K30w9014229 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Mar 2019 21:03:02 +0100 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 wiesinger.com x26K30w9014229 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wiesinger.com; s=default; t=1551902583; bh=j90UGS9eT/w6p4TIFU64M5KL0xqaPSoeGWmXmpq5sQE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=siPWQoZGlVsNJx+7ayYT+22g6kezU20TQ8psrdU0jpkWkAl4eJ439FNt5OJLeodN/ 2iMpcNbMhxEAbFDbW1nBIHcM0V1SYcJnf7RnA747QfGb/HTyblz7CVooAgPzhU1w0r b4ZYOyzyKKd1e+tucYD9jG/qivAtMD9L0H93bJ7f8o+0Ic02vYCV1wHfT+WNQ9BOy9 WdeHL32oszEOl2D8EFb0SFHpyNtFWSRvTeCW6e2w3e3pTSc9S3uqIykHyKGV3BeU0l l2fia6p7qB/LA138Hw8QNlFmt3NUAhi7Ta9//EEtYG4DWWc/XsU9nCaKJ0KIJxy7/y z3oUfGCkh9toaCi0SF42+xp3h+ZfdvWxGKyQ33Sl44OSWa8sXzNKfatrAftDnw1jk1 XOZBFtvOyvI4gx5MvFRWAojkYeApdHJvRrR59b61duft818Y86WDfNcQAdhHqbMjcL 0C0W7WPANhByUHp78gvAEVTIhJGhp9z4eiu11KSDdKVRdyHLmmma/EYFzQ72PlUw/A bL9DE0OS91TCWJPF3SW7DdGfMHo/ZSIqn/fv+NwP3ZGhyIPQkMPcVvX3Gf8/6R5332 tzkDyWn86dsQRHA3uUJQAnZgYwkY/SuiVkOu16n59qWKs1IntMPSLG5FSwwhnXcaDf loqaaH65z7Hm8yVndi9557jQ= Subject: Re: Banana Pi-R1 stabil To: Maxime Ripard Cc: arm@lists.fedoraproject.org, Chen-Yu Tsai , LKML , Florian Fainelli , filbar@centrum.cz References: <7b20af72-76ea-a7b1-9939-ca378dc0ed83@wiesinger.com> <20190227092023.nvr34byfjranujfm@flea> <5f63a2c6-abcb-736f-d382-18e8cea31b65@wiesinger.com> <20190228093516.abual3564dkvx6un@flea> <91c22ba4-39eb-dd3d-29bd-1bfa7a45e9cd@wiesinger.com> <20190301093038.oz56z22ivpntdcfw@flea> <8ad8fbeb-fad8-d39a-9cc6-e7f1deab0b4f@wiesinger.com> <20190305092830.ef45kxzhdnxlh63g@flea> <9f189569-bf76-22d2-3bf7-db710f616998@wiesinger.com> <20190306073605.modlx4yhdzbg7sfz@flea> From: Gerhard Wiesinger Message-ID: <34300c49-fe89-77cb-444a-f6de02d41a62@wiesinger.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 21:03:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190306073605.modlx4yhdzbg7sfz@flea> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06.03.2019 08:36, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> Yes, there might at least 2 scenarios: >> >> 1.) Frequency switching itself is the problem > But that code is also the one being used by the BananaPro, which you > reported as stable. Yes, BananaPro is stable (with exactly same configuration as far as I know) .... > >> 2.) lower frequency/voltage operating points are not stable. >> >> For both scenarios: it might be possible that the crash happens on idle CPU, >> high CPU load or just randomly. Therefore just "waiting" might be better >> than 100% CPU utilization.But will test also 100% CPU. >> >> Therefore it would be good to see where the voltages for different >> frequencies for the SoC are defined (to compare). > In the device tree. > >> I'm currently testing 2 different settings on the 2 new Banana Pi R1 with >> newest kernel (see below), so 2 static frequencies: >> >> # Set to specific frequency 144000 (currently testing on Banana Pi R1 #1) >> >> # Set to specific frequency 312000 (currently testing on Banana Pi R1 #2) >> >> If that's fine I'll test also further frequencies (with different loads). > Look, you can come up with whatever program you want for this, but if > I insist on running that cpustress program (for the 4th time now), is > that it's actually good at it and caught all the cpufreq issues we've > seen so far. As I wrote, I run several stress tests also with the program you mention. But test combination require a minimum testing time to get verifiable results. The combinations are: - idle cpu vs. 100% CPU - on demand governor vs. several fixed frequencies. So far stable testing conditions for idle CPU and 100% CPU with command line below and cpuburn-a7 program: # Set to max performance (stable)=> frequency 960000 # Set to specific frequency 144000 (stable) # Set to specific frequency 312000 (stable) TODO list to test with "idle" CPU and 100% CPU: # Set to specific frequency 528000 (next step tested) # Set to specific frequency 720000 (next step tested) # Set to specific frequency 864000 # Set to specific frequency 912000 # Set to ondemand My guess is (but it is just a guess which has to be verified): - stable in all fixed frequencies in idle CPU and 100% CPU condition as well as on demand and 100% CPU - not stable with ondemand and "idle" CPU (so real frequency switching will happen often) > > Feel free to not trust me on this, but I'm not sure how the discussion > can continue if you do. > You missed my point from my previous mail: "But will test also 100% CPU.". See command line below. Ciao, Gerhard Test script: while true; do echo "========================================"; echo -n "CPU_FREQ0: "; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq; echo -n "CPU_FREQ1: "; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq; sleep 1; done& ./stress/cpuburn-a7