| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:57:21 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> To: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com Subject: 2.6.29-rcX: wierd iteractions with CPUFREQ Hi, Something weird is happening with 2.6.29 - once my laptop starts heating up and fans come up it locks at 800MHz, but there are no valid thermal events. If I enable cpufreq debug I am getting the following (dump stack was added by myself to see where __cpufreq_set_policy is being called from): CPU0: setting new policy for CPU 0: 800000 - 2201000 kHz Pid: 220, comm: kacpi_notify Not tainted 2.6.29-rc8 #110 Call Trace: [<ffffffff812fd35e>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x3a/0x210 [<ffffffff812fed87>] cpufreq_update_policy+0x112/0x134 [<ffffffff812feda9>] ? handle_update+0x0/0x38 [<ffffffff8121bde7>] acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed+0xc8/0xd1 [<ffffffff8120f69d>] ? acpi_bus_get_device+0x2a/0x3e [<ffffffff81218298>] acpi_processor_notify+0x64/0x10d [<ffffffff814505bf>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x62 [<ffffffff811fae58>] acpi_ev_notify_dispatch+0x64/0x70 [<ffffffff811f46d2>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x31/0x3e [<ffffffff8104e301>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x21b [<ffffffff8104e2af>] ? run_workqueue+0xb6/0x21b [<ffffffff811f46a1>] ? acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x0/0x3e [<ffffffff8104e4f9>] worker_thread+0xe5/0xf6 [<ffffffff81052599>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3d [<ffffffff8104e414>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0xf6 [<ffffffff810521b8>] kthread+0x4e/0x7b [<ffffffff8100cb7a>] child_rip+0xa/0x20 [<ffffffff81035d11>] ? finish_task_switch+0x0/0xca [<ffffffff8100c540>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 [<ffffffff8105216a>] ? kthread+0x0/0x7b [<ffffffff8100cb70>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20 freq-table: request for verification of policy (800000 - 2201000 kHz) for cpu 0 freq-table: verification lead to (800000 - 2201000 kHz) for cpu 0 freq-table: request for verification of policy (800000 - 800000 kHz) for cpu 0 freq-table: verification lead to (800000 - 800000 kHz) for cpu 0 cpufreq-core: new min and max freqs are 800000 - 800000 kHz cpufreq-core: governor: change or update limits cpufreq-core: __cpufreq_governor for CPU 0, event 3 cpufreq-core: target for CPU 0: 800000 kHz, relation 1 freq-table: request for target 800000 kHz (relation: 1) for cpu 0 freq-table: target is 4 (800000 kHz, 4) cpufreq-core: notification 0 of frequency transition to 800000 kHz cpufreq-core: notification 1 of frequency transition to 800000 kHz As you can see for some reason the 2nd validation clams the frequency to 800 (although the first one done immediately before says that 2.2GHz is fine) and the system slows to a crawl. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists