[Fwd: Fwd: [patch] ACPI: fix cpufreq regression]
Can this one also be added to 2.6.19.X kernel. Beside the Thinkpad it also seems to fix other system: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7859 Thanks, Thomas Forwarded Message From: Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Fwd: [patch] ACPI: fix cpufreq regression Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:13:14 -0500 nobody else with a T60 noticed this since November? I expect it's because the patch which caused the regression, seemed to be rather safe and came in quite late... -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [patch] ACPI: fix cpufreq regression Date: Tuesday 16 January 2007 12:09 From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED], Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED], Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [patch] ACPI: fix cpufreq regression From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] recently cpufreq support on my laptop (Lenovo T60) broke completely: when it's plugged into AC it would never go higher than 1 GHz - neither 1.3 GHz nor 1.83 GHz is possible - no matter which governor (userspace, speed or ondemand) is used. after some cpufreq debugging i tracked the regression back to the following (totally correct) bug-fix commit: commit 0916bd3ebb7cefdd0f432e8491abe24f4b5a101e Author: Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed Nov 22 20:42:01 2006 -0500 [PATCH] Correct bound checking from the value returned from _PPC method. this bugfix, which makes other laptops work, made a previously hidden (BIOS) bug visible on my laptop. The bug is the following: if the _PPC (Performance Present Capabilities) optional ACPI object is queried /after/ bootup then the BIOS reports an incorrect value of '2'. My laptop (Lenovo T60) has the following performance states supported: 0: 1833000 1: 1333000 2: 100 Per ACPI specification, a _PPC value of '0' means that all 3 performance states are usable. A _PPC value of '1' means states 1 .. 2 are usable, a value of '2' means only state '2' (slowest) is usable. now, the _PPC object is optional, and it also comes with notification. Furthermore, when a CPU object is initialized, the _PPC object is initialized as well. So the following evaluation of the _PPC object is superfluous: [c028ba5f] acpi_processor_get_platform_limit+0xa1/0xaf [c028c040] acpi_processor_register_performance+0x3b9/0x3ef [c0111a85] acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init+0xb7/0x596 [c03dab74] cpufreq_add_dev+0x160/0x4a8 [c02bed90] sysdev_driver_register+0x5a/0xa0 [c03d9c4c] cpufreq_register_driver+0xb4/0x176 [c068ac08] acpi_cpufreq_init+0xe5/0xeb [c010056e] init+0x14f/0x3dd and this is the point where my laptop's BIOS returns the incorrect value of '2'. Note that it has not sent any notification event, so the value is probably not really intentional (possibly spurious), and Windows likely doesnt query it after bootup either. Maybe the value is kept at '2' normally, and is only set to the real value when a true asynchronous event (such as AC plug event, battery switch, etc.) occurs. So i /think/ this is a grey area of the ACPI spec: per the letter of the spec the _PPC value only changes when notified, so there's no reason to query it after the system has booted up. So in my opinion the best (and most compatible) strategy would be to do the change below, and to not evaluate the _PPC object in the acpi_processor_get_performance_info() call, but only evaluate it if _PPC is present during CPU object init, or if it's notified during an asynchronous event. This change is more permissive than the previous logic, so it definitely shouldnt break any existing system. This also happens to fix my laptop, which is merrily chugging along at 1.83 GHz now. Yay! Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c |4 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) Index: linux/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c === --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c +++ linux/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c @@ -322,10 +322,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_performanc if (result) return result; - result = acpi_processor_get_platform_limit(pr); - if (result) - return result; - return 0; } - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ --- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info
Re: [Fwd: Fwd: [patch] ACPI: fix cpufreq regression]
Acked-by: Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tuesday 23 January 2007 11:16, Thomas Renninger wrote: Can this one also be added to 2.6.19.X kernel. Beside the Thinkpad it also seems to fix other system: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7859 Thanks, Thomas Forwarded Message From: Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Fwd: [patch] ACPI: fix cpufreq regression Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:13:14 -0500 nobody else with a T60 noticed this since November? I expect it's because the patch which caused the regression, seemed to be rather safe and came in quite late... -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [patch] ACPI: fix cpufreq regression Date: Tuesday 16 January 2007 12:09 From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED], Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED], Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [patch] ACPI: fix cpufreq regression From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] recently cpufreq support on my laptop (Lenovo T60) broke completely: when it's plugged into AC it would never go higher than 1 GHz - neither 1.3 GHz nor 1.83 GHz is possible - no matter which governor (userspace, speed or ondemand) is used. after some cpufreq debugging i tracked the regression back to the following (totally correct) bug-fix commit: commit 0916bd3ebb7cefdd0f432e8491abe24f4b5a101e Author: Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed Nov 22 20:42:01 2006 -0500 [PATCH] Correct bound checking from the value returned from _PPC method. this bugfix, which makes other laptops work, made a previously hidden (BIOS) bug visible on my laptop. The bug is the following: if the _PPC (Performance Present Capabilities) optional ACPI object is queried /after/ bootup then the BIOS reports an incorrect value of '2'. My laptop (Lenovo T60) has the following performance states supported: 0: 1833000 1: 1333000 2: 100 Per ACPI specification, a _PPC value of '0' means that all 3 performance states are usable. A _PPC value of '1' means states 1 .. 2 are usable, a value of '2' means only state '2' (slowest) is usable. now, the _PPC object is optional, and it also comes with notification. Furthermore, when a CPU object is initialized, the _PPC object is initialized as well. So the following evaluation of the _PPC object is superfluous: [c028ba5f] acpi_processor_get_platform_limit+0xa1/0xaf [c028c040] acpi_processor_register_performance+0x3b9/0x3ef [c0111a85] acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init+0xb7/0x596 [c03dab74] cpufreq_add_dev+0x160/0x4a8 [c02bed90] sysdev_driver_register+0x5a/0xa0 [c03d9c4c] cpufreq_register_driver+0xb4/0x176 [c068ac08] acpi_cpufreq_init+0xe5/0xeb [c010056e] init+0x14f/0x3dd and this is the point where my laptop's BIOS returns the incorrect value of '2'. Note that it has not sent any notification event, so the value is probably not really intentional (possibly spurious), and Windows likely doesnt query it after bootup either. Maybe the value is kept at '2' normally, and is only set to the real value when a true asynchronous event (such as AC plug event, battery switch, etc.) occurs. So i /think/ this is a grey area of the ACPI spec: per the letter of the spec the _PPC value only changes when notified, so there's no reason to query it after the system has booted up. So in my opinion the best (and most compatible) strategy would be to do the change below, and to not evaluate the _PPC object in the acpi_processor_get_performance_info() call, but only evaluate it if _PPC is present during CPU object init, or if it's notified during an asynchronous event. This change is more permissive than the previous logic, so it definitely shouldnt break any existing system. This also happens to fix my laptop, which is merrily chugging along at 1.83 GHz now. Yay! Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c |4 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) Index: linux/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c === --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c +++ linux/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c @@ -322,10 +322,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_performanc if (result) return result; - result = acpi_processor_get_platform_limit(pr); - if (result) - return result; - return 0; } - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ --- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in the body of a message to
