From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0916A1E492 for ; Fri, 31 May 2024 14:01:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717164105; cv=none; b=HuqjKkaPkiWLe4mS46CPlHfju+c4K/T356yhJXQshrit6A4yixO4vk94HfiqhVxIzRk7Z81IaH+58SVobTmed/Y4g1PBLruA01SDcoJpd6jUCX0xZGeTBbPpvyc+vujURkVO8zFTcCZgy63YnxbaBKliYhmVUHqxt4I7p9Y2ZYM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717164105; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lK/0nMMJ/TDipJSVBi64yBgAD33xFjkZEPEaZ6gUwsA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rf/BKzCjKVfQD3Ug6Q7kFC2GEZ5XCZNgKul1DaRfAn3At3aKDe8VLdvZcYhhrVZmCOvJt2TNfJJyzDGJKuhx1ULBUiQDmnrGt6ryHZf3z/rPMMTy59+UjeE+m4aemgtNT7kIt8dwpvYm0FsvGpYqEHXW74+d0H9ZXbOb01gvr+8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=4fVDNEdQ; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=4O8P8LK4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="4fVDNEdQ"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="4O8P8LK4" Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 16:01:40 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1717164102; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lK/0nMMJ/TDipJSVBi64yBgAD33xFjkZEPEaZ6gUwsA=; b=4fVDNEdQUVUlt3cfIGjlfC67Ld6JmFNrBueFKP+cjeybNk9Wp4aumEGNxBieQwFdbBRFGi s/+k3zHGA7Cdnj1cGaH2xt1/xRvq8VNZ1c7S7Iocsv+1tsMm0sIDBJ8znqDQgfG5AsAQUH EVEQUIwLClOu6cVHDkbyKxMMRQfZ5S80RfYjBVbewgPubItslSH4pBWPvTtE5z8Hg7SJj6 AZ8DuDrX8RyV1uGu2V3ZYJdleRJU71cUodZ0tiddrPN/aXKohKKWc73yojoygEn/ofKuco PopTDALjQ2e3KQtlrEFQA5cqXmFgdEkIaQAlULObfzfHwH2vQOUHMhtL6tNPgw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1717164102; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lK/0nMMJ/TDipJSVBi64yBgAD33xFjkZEPEaZ6gUwsA=; b=4O8P8LK4Ckj4JlDsfwIWswQF6TR4UY9knEmC7np/T/HffUEGrnlcGyeRcEQv/vjuTfz8p7 s0VRlSAJkxDWBdBw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: srinivas pandruvada Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Thomas Gleixner , Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap on wrong CPU Message-ID: <20240531140140.pfKOWdB-@linutronix.de> References: <20240529155740.Hq2Hw7be@linutronix.de> <20240531110200.CtBSN_p4@linutronix.de> <3eaf90b63edccb3317968101040510c91b5b2f4e.camel@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <3eaf90b63edccb3317968101040510c91b5b2f4e.camel@linux.intel.com> On 2024-05-31 04:56:04 [-0700], srinivas pandruvada wrote: > > Would you mind letting > > =C2=A0 /sys/devices/system/cpu/intel_pstate/num_pstates > >=20 > > reporting something sane? Not 4294967285 but 0 for instance? Would > > that > > make sense? > >=20 > It should be some good value, usually less than 50. Do you see this > high number without even triggering condition, which caused warning? Nope, without the error I see 22. I think this went "-EIO + -EIO -1" which ended up as what I reported by chance. Never mind then. > In your system, firmware changed performance notifying via ACPI. That > method is deprecated for a while. You are using Haswell, which has this > support. But deprecated from Skylake. Okay. Anything I should change? > > Did Sebastian _Reichel_ report it, too? > My mistake. I picked up wrong Sebastian. Sorry. Ah okay. Then Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior because it does not do read the MSR in the code path I reported. > Thanks, > Srinivas Sebastian