Message-Id: <201312292202.02236.gheskett@wdtv.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Dec 2013 22:02:02 -0500
From:	Gene Heskett <gheskett@...v.com>
To:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG BISECTED] Phenom microcode revision mis-applied

On Sunday 29 December 2013, Jason Cooper wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 02:49:16PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Sunday 29 December 2013, Jason Cooper wrote:
>> >On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 12:47:02PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >> On Sunday 29 December 2013, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >> >Resend, incorrect subject line
>> >> >
>> >> >Here is the copy/paste of the final git bisect bad report:
>> >> >
>> >> >First, the reason for the bisect:
>> >> >gene@...ote:~/linux-stable$ dmesg | grep -A2 microcode
>> >> >[    0.518304] microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x01000065
>> >> >[    0.518396] microcode: CPU1: patch_level=0x01000065
>> >> >[    0.518498] microcode: CPU2: patch_level=0x01000065
>> >> >[    0.518593] microcode: CPU3: patch_level=0x01000065
>> >> >[    0.518745] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00
>> >> ><tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba
>> >> >
>> >> >The output above should have in each cpu case, a second, or final
>> >> >line showing a patch level 0x0100083 in all cases.
>> >> >This failure is on an AMD phenom 9550 equipt machine.
>> >> >
>> >> >I can and have built from the tarball pull, a 3.8.2 which does work
>> >> >correctly.  The tarball build of 3.8.3 fails as above, and a
>> >> >tarball build of 3.12.6 still fails.
>> >> >
>> >> >gene@...ote:~/linux-stable$ git bisect bad
>> >> >908e88f285b909011dc7dbce5abaacf123f2f68d is the first bad commit
>> >> >commit 908e88f285b909011dc7dbce5abaacf123f2f68d
>> >> >Author: Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
>> >> >Date:   Mon Feb 25 16:09:12 2013 +0000
>> >> >
>> >> >I'll next do a "git checkout v3.8.2" to double check that it works.
>> >
>> >Please re-read the manpage for git bisect, particularly the section
>> >"Basic bisect commands".  You need to keep repeating building and
>> >booting the kernel, execute 'git bisect [good|bad]', as git bisect
>> >checks out different commits to try.  Depending on the number of
>> >commits, it can take 7 to 10 iterations before it nails it down to the
>> >bad commit.
>> >
>> >$ git log --oneline v3.8.2..v3.8.3 | wc -l
>> >103
>> >
>> >So you started at v3.8.3, said v3.8.2 is good.  git bisect will then
>> >checkout a commit in the middle (of the 103 commits to choose from). 
>> >You need to build that kernel, boot it, and see if the error occurs. 
>> >Then, type 'git bisect [bad|good]' depending on what happened.  When
>> >that command returns, it has checked out a different commit between
>> >v3.8.2 and v3.8.3.  Build, boot, and run 'git bisect [good|bad]'
>> >depending on if the patch_level was reported properly.  Repeat until
>> >it reports nothing left to test.
>> >
>> >> FWIW, a git checkout v3.8.2  also fails, so next I'll move my
>> >> working tarball build .configs into that tree & see if it works.
>> >
>> >If the config you started with worked for v3.8.2 and didn't for
>> >v3.8.3, keep using it.
>> >
>> >> This is getting stranger, a checkout v3.8.2 is supposed to match the
>> >> tarball I got from kernel.org isn't it?
>> >
>> >Yes, see above.  As soon as you started the bisection process, you
>> >were no longer on version 3.8.2 or 3.8.3, but somewhere in between. 
>> >That's what's supposed to happen.
>> >
>> >Once you run enough iterations to get nothing left to test, record the
>> >commit it identified, and run 'git bisect reset'.
>> 
>> I did do that, the above report was the final of about 8 or 9 reboots
>> after telling it each time "git bisect bad".
>
>I'm not trying to insult you, but just to be clear: After each reboot,
>was the patch_level reported wrong?  If it was correct, you needed to
>run 'git bisect good' instead.  I can't think of any other reason why it
>would finger the commit above.
>
>> These will all be 32 bit PAE kernels though as I don't know how to
>> convert it to 64 bit when a make xconfig doesn't give me that option.
>
>Ahhh, then you should start with i386_defconfig.  You can see the full
>list at arch/x86/configs/.  I assumed you were running 64bit, my fault.
>
>thx,
>
>Jason.

Finally done with the forward bisect:

gene@...ote:~/linux-stable$ dmesg|grep -A2 microcode
microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x01000065
microcode: CPU0: new patch_level=0x01000083
microcode: CPU1: patch_level=0x01000065
microcode: CPU1: new patch_level=0x01000083
microcode: CPU2: patch_level=0x01000065
microcode: CPU2: new patch_level=0x01000083
microcode: CPU3: patch_level=0x01000065
microcode: CPU3: new patch_level=0x01000083
microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba

gene@...ote:~/linux-stable$ git bisect good
1a45c310b2102c58e37f84abba67fe21d5d6edcf is the first bad commit
commit 1a45c310b2102c58e37f84abba67fe21d5d6edcf
Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu Mar 14 11:27:14 2013 -0700

    Linux 3.8.3

:100644 100644 20d53183508e8f49253ec7e5ede0a12b4556fc32 8c49fc9b45a993a8e78cde4f9621b727b9121eac M	Makefile

The v3.8.3 Makefile?  Its just about the only thing that would be bad 
every step from v3.8.3 to v3.8.2, and good all the way from v3.8.2 to 
the last patch that made the v3.8.3 release.  Bisected twice, once in
each direction.

Cheers, Gene

--
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