From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 9DD3418B03 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2024 19:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730144378; cv=none; b=tmcT4PubKhXpiyVWp3MKoucWVxINOGfi8a63LR+VgQx8X7ClAQOSD1O9gISgYRq9zBisvbp9wKq/QKzFwQXmA09V64EdiKLGGAM8EKBDDD9C/19li0lOG2nZSwMmdG0OHlpCWag0Q39CS57A8zbxoL3aVxIXNYt5WdDMXmsN5uM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730144378; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wB1qg/oUhgneifVB41+Sy2sTmQVPsdCfRHuct9k2cdg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=qlrF0BujLiTKeL+rZCSKcZ5v/8XoiBqggK39LwxXQlnDbSaIl/6V4eyR7unhCykXZYmI0A29TwRE4wOzJsw0YgQZziqUdjTH8fA/NwA4BNWH+6R8gE/aoSo6tf7QPJY9Lntpr139lCsv77Q52jW5WRvqBUyfxQuXsAN1jJz+m2Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=PAzvCyW7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="PAzvCyW7" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28140C4CEC3 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2024 19:39:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1730144378; bh=wB1qg/oUhgneifVB41+Sy2sTmQVPsdCfRHuct9k2cdg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PAzvCyW7TI2SYPt3W6QKsS3UixcV5vaPgi8P++P/aJvLj5mfRrqzNp56fK7cux76Y ZPclCg6X2B8r92E0zg/7b+wNU50d4eXrHA9ymlQJk64I2u1ugb4Sf55nSEn9vABTPr ALVna/0rvTNy1SHr7rrihFLh2e1UbrWmuNbNtI9A8SSoXX/IYXxlWAryGmFWERV3Sz zS3tOdw6qwoXfXKfTcaiQw5LYULwJObS/JfznGh09eiPa0S7kcGZMIVms/PjNeSE5i QR+Gk+//pX6eQGU9DiosgJMQ/F2tKsBCQq5hKC+WzH5SusIpZy8+FSmCrIoKpcVpzI gov29YrOdTGzQ== Received: by aws-us-west-2-korg-bugzilla-1.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 1E35AC53BC8; Mon, 28 Oct 2024 19:39:38 +0000 (UTC) From: bugzilla-daemon@kernel.org To: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: [Bug 219431] [6.12] amd-pstate / Ryzen 5xxx (Zen 3, Vermeer): Could not retrieve highest performance (-19) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 19:39:37 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Power Management X-Bugzilla-Component: cpufreq X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.5 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mario.limonciello@amd.com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D219431 --- Comment #11 from Mario Limonciello (AMD) (mario.limonciello@amd.com) --- >I assumed that all Zen 3 desktop parts are ACPI CPPC-based rather than >MSR-based? That's why I mentioned Vermeer in both my original mail and this >bug report. Vermeer is a shared memory based design. All the newer designs are MSR bas= ed. > There is also an interesting observation, that at some point *after* this > warning we get a pr_debug() from the end of amd_detect_prefcore(), which > indicates that the latter is called again and this error does not happen > anymore: Yeah that's why I was wondering if there was a functional issue. It seems l= ike this is going to influence some of the frequency invariance code that's set= up earlier on. > I'm not familiar with control flow in these subsystems, but isn't it poss= ible > that we are simply racing with ACPI (and thus CPPC) subsystem initializat= ion? acpi_init() calls=20 acpi_bus_init()() calls=20 acpi_bus_osc_negotiate_platform_control()=20 which sets osc_sb_cppc2_support_acked Here is the more full call path that fails: acpi_init() calls acpi_scan_init() calls acpi_processor_init()=20 which loads "processor" kernel module >From "processor" kernel module: acpi_processor_driver_init() calls acpi_soft_cpu_online() calls __acpi_processor_start() calls=20 acpi_cppc_processor_probe() calls=20 arch_init_invariance_cppc() which is a macro to call=20 init_freq_invariance_cppc(). I'm not sure I understand why CPPC v2 _OSC isn't acked though at the right time.=20=20 Can you use ftrace or annotate the functions with some printk's to figure it out perhaps from what I've shared? --=20 You may reply to this email to add a comment. You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=