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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:24:38 +0100
From:   Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Erwan Velu <e.velu@...teo.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
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@...nel.org> a écrit :
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:52 AM Erwan Velu <e.velu@...teo.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@...il.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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists