Messages in this thread | | | From | Erwan Velu <> | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:24:38 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Report if CPU doesn't report boost technologies |
| |
I tried to put the message in a way to stay neutral, not saying if its a real error or not. Just reporting we were not able to find any boost cap on it. Erwan,
Le mer. 20 févr. 2019 à 12:16, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> a écrit : > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:52 AM Erwan Velu <e.velu@criteo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Le 20/02/2019 à 11:41, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit : > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:11 AM Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> There is some rare cases where CPB (and possibly IDA) are missing on processors. > > >> This is the case fixed by commit f7f3dc00f612 ("x86/cpu/AMD: Fix erratum 1076 (CPB bit)") and following. > > >> > > >> In such context, the boost status isn't reported by /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost. > > > So I'm not really sure why the extra message is needed. It looks like > > > this message will always be printed (with debug output enabled) if the > > > current cpufreq driver is acpi-cpufreq and the boost attribute is not > > > present in sysfs, which only is the case if CPB/IDA aren't there. > > > > > > Does it provide any additional information, then? > > > > When you know and read the code, yes this patch is too obvious. > > > > As a user when I was troubleshooting why the boost entry was _not_ > > populated on one CPU and was populated on another. > > > > Running acpi-cpufreq with dyndbg, I would have found useful to get that > > hint. > > > > So that could helps users that never read that part of the code and > > which are tricked into that configuration. > > OK, I see your point. > > I'll queue up the patch, but I guess I'll change the message.
| |