On Monday, January 29, 2018 3:26:46 AM CET Yu Chen wrote:
> The following warning was triggered after resumed from S3 -
> if all the nonboot CPUs were put offline before suspend:
> 
> [ 1840.329515] unchecked MSR access error: RDMSR from 0x771 at rIP: 
> 0xffffffff86061e3a (native_read_msr+0xa/0x30)
> [ 1840.329516] Call Trace:
> [ 1840.329521]  __rdmsr_on_cpu+0x33/0x50
> [ 1840.329525]  generic_exec_single+0x81/0xb0
> [ 1840.329527]  smp_call_function_single+0xd2/0x100
> [ 1840.329530]  ? acpi_ds_result_pop+0xdd/0xf2
> [ 1840.329532]  ? acpi_ds_create_operand+0x215/0x23c
> [ 1840.329534]  rdmsrl_on_cpu+0x57/0x80
> [ 1840.329536]  ? cpumask_next+0x1b/0x20
> [ 1840.329538]  ? rdmsrl_on_cpu+0x57/0x80
> [ 1840.329541]  intel_pstate_update_perf_limits+0xf3/0x220
> [ 1840.329544]  ? notifier_call_chain+0x4a/0x70
> [ 1840.329546]  intel_pstate_set_policy+0x4e/0x150
> [ 1840.329548]  cpufreq_set_policy+0xcd/0x2f0
> [ 1840.329550]  cpufreq_update_policy+0xb2/0x130
> [ 1840.329552]  ? cpufreq_update_policy+0x130/0x130
> [ 1840.329556]  acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed+0x65/0x80
> [ 1840.329558]  acpi_processor_notify+0x80/0x100
> [ 1840.329561]  acpi_ev_notify_dispatch+0x44/0x5c
> [ 1840.329563]  acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x14/0x20
> [ 1840.329565]  process_one_work+0x193/0x3c0
> [ 1840.329567]  worker_thread+0x35/0x3b0
> [ 1840.329569]  kthread+0x125/0x140
> [ 1840.329571]  ? process_one_work+0x3c0/0x3c0
> [ 1840.329572]  ? kthread_park+0x60/0x60
> [ 1840.329575]  ? do_syscall_64+0x67/0x180
> [ 1840.329577]  ret_from_fork+0x25/0x30
> [ 1840.329585] unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0x774 (tried to write 
> 0x0000000000000000) at rIP: 0xffffffff86061f78 (native_write_msr+0x8/0x30)
> [ 1840.329586] Call Trace:
> [ 1840.329587]  __wrmsr_on_cpu+0x37/0x40
> [ 1840.329589]  generic_exec_single+0x81/0xb0
> [ 1840.329592]  smp_call_function_single+0xd2/0x100
> [ 1840.329594]  ? acpi_ds_create_operand+0x215/0x23c
> [ 1840.329595]  ? cpumask_next+0x1b/0x20
> [ 1840.329597]  wrmsrl_on_cpu+0x57/0x70
> [ 1840.329598]  ? rdmsrl_on_cpu+0x57/0x80
> [ 1840.329599]  ? wrmsrl_on_cpu+0x57/0x70
> [ 1840.329602]  intel_pstate_hwp_set+0xd3/0x150
> [ 1840.329604]  intel_pstate_set_policy+0x119/0x150
> [ 1840.329606]  cpufreq_set_policy+0xcd/0x2f0
> [ 1840.329607]  cpufreq_update_policy+0xb2/0x130
> [ 1840.329610]  ? cpufreq_update_policy+0x130/0x130
> [ 1840.329613]  acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed+0x65/0x80
> [ 1840.329615]  acpi_processor_notify+0x80/0x100
> [ 1840.329617]  acpi_ev_notify_dispatch+0x44/0x5c
> [ 1840.329619]  acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x14/0x20
> [ 1840.329620]  process_one_work+0x193/0x3c0
> [ 1840.329622]  worker_thread+0x35/0x3b0
> [ 1840.329624]  kthread+0x125/0x140
> [ 1840.329625]  ? process_one_work+0x3c0/0x3c0
> [ 1840.329626]  ? kthread_park+0x60/0x60
> [ 1840.329628]  ? do_syscall_64+0x67/0x180
> [ 1840.329631]  ret_from_fork+0x25/0x30
> 
> This is because if there's only one online CPU, the MSR_PM_ENABLE
> (package wide)can not be enabled after resumed, due to
> intel_pstate_hwp_enable() will only be invoked on AP's online
> process after resumed - if there's no AP online, the HWP remains
> disabled after resumed (BIOS has disabled it in S3). Then if
> there comes a _PPC change notification which touches HWP register
> during this stage, the warning is triggered.
> 
> Since we don't call acpi_processor_register_performance() when
> HWP is enabled, the pr->performance will be NULL. When this is
> NULL we don't need to do _PPC change notification.
> 
> Reported-by: Doug Smythies <dsmyth...@telus.net>
> Suggested-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruv...@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Chen <yu.c.c...@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c 
> b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> index 18b72eec3507..c7cf48ad5cb9 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ void acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor 
> *pr, int event_flag)
>  {
>       int ret;
>  
> -     if (ignore_ppc) {
> +     if (ignore_ppc || !pr->performance) {
>               /*
>                * Only when it is notification event, the _OST object
>                * will be evaluated. Otherwise it is skipped.
> 

Applied, thanks!


Reply via email to